Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Doncaster Corporation (Trolley-Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Great Western Railway Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time. [The Deputy-Chairman.]

Prince of Wales' Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Southern Railway Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till half-past Seven of the clock this day.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill, Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills, have leave to consider the Bill forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES AND HORSES.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian HENDERSON:
Address for Return showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles and horses in streets, roads, or public places, and the number of persons killed or injured by such Accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1928 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 57, of Session 1928).

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I make a suggestion at this stage for the extension of this Return in one particular, namely, that there should be added in every case an indication as to whether the driver of the vehicle or of the horse is to blame for the accident, or whether the blame is not attached to the driver?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think if the hon. Member wishes to do that he had better put a Motion down on the Order Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the accidents that result from the different vehicles be shown in this Return, and will a distinction be drawn between accidents due to mechanically-propelled vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can this Return be delayed in order to give hon. Members more notice? I object to this Motion.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Very well. I will put the Motion down again To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOD-WORKERS' TOOLS (IMPORTS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wood-workers' tools that have been imported into Great Britain for the 12 months previous to the last convenient date; and whether he has any statistics that will show what percentage this number is of the gross amount used in Great Britain?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer contains a number of figures, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Do the figures distinguish between tools which are specially imported for use in Government Departments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the imports, into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1928, of certain descriptions of implements and tools for wood-working. Separate particulars for all kinds of woodworkers' tools are not available.

—
Number.
Declared Value.




£


Saws, including saw blades for both hand and machine tools.
13,846,608
96,925


Axes, hatchets, adzes and matchets.
190,148
11,139


Carpenters' and joiners' tools (including cutting pans of woodworking machinery) of kinds not specifically enumerated.
5,200,537
133,054


Value of total Imports.

241,118


Value of Re-exports

10,782


Value of Imports retained.

230,336

Statistics are not available as to the number of tools of the above kinds in use in this country, but the total selling value of such tools produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924, as recorded in the third Census of Production was £1,689,000. In the same year, the exports of such tools were valued at £770,000 (f.o.b.) and the net imports at £239,000 (c.i.f.) so that, of the total value of such tools available for use in this country in 1924, about 20 per cent. was attributable to imported goods.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION CENTRES.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the proposed reduction of examination centres for masters and mates in Scotland and the elimination of Leith from the number of existing examination centres, if he has received the protest of the Midlothian County Council against any reduction; and, if so, what further action does he propose in view of such protest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sorry that I did not hear the reply which was given yesterday. Am I to understand that the Board of Trade are withdrawing the proposal for limiting the number of examination centres?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will read the answer which was given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary:
In order to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Examinations of Masters and Mates, it has been decided that in future all papers shall be set and corrected at headquarters; but, in order to avoid any hardship to candidates, it has been decided to retain the present places of examination and the present frequency of examinations, subject of course to the right to review should circumstances change in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1929; cols. 2069–70, Vol. 226.]

Mr. WESTWOOD: Thank you.

LOSS OF DOWNS LIGHTS VESSEL.

Mr. KELLY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry is to be held into the sinking of the Downs lights vessel which had temporarily taken the place of the "Gull" lights vessel and which resulted in loss of the life of the master?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Preliminary inquiries are being made into this case and some depositions from the survivors of the lightship and from the "City of York" have been received.
Further depositions are being obtained. I am not yet able to say whether a formal investigation will be necessary.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that fact known? I would certainly like to have the knowledge whether an investigation is to take place.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. There is always a formal announcement of an investigation, if there is to be one.

Mr. KELLY: I want to represent the master, and I would like to have the information sent on to me if the Board of Trade decide upon an investigation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will make a note of that. I do not know in the least whether it will be necessary to have an investigation, but, if an investigation should be decided upon and the hon. Member will give my secretary notice as to where he will be during the holidays, I will have a reply sent to him.

SEAMEN (ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT).

Mr. KELLY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to ratify the international convention of 1926 on seamen's articles of agreement; and, if not, will he state the reason?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): A White Paper stating the action proposed by His Majesty's Government in regard to this Draft Convention will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Mr. KELLY: Is further consideration being given to the ratification of this Convention?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have already said that a White Paper will be laid before Parliament. The hon. Member had better wait until that is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL GAS POISONING.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during the past 15 years deaths due to coal gas poisoning have increased from 170 to 1,142; that during that period the percentage of carbon monoxide, the chief
poisonous constituent of coal gas, has been raised from 7 per cent. to as much as 15 per cent., and in some cases to 20 per cent., such increase militating against the recovery of persons accidentally poisoned by gas; and whether he is prepared to give consideration to the recommendation of the Committee appointed in 1921 to the effect that if the freedom from limitation in the use of carbon monoxide is proved to be accompanied by unexpectedly unfavourable results, the attention of Parliament should again be directed to the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been directed to the statistics of gas poisoning cited by the right hon. Member; and, more particularly since the Report of the Committee on Carbon Monoxide in 1921, the situation has been carefully watched and relevant information collected. When reference is made to the number of deaths due to gas poisoning, it is necessary to bear in mind how large a proportion are cases of suicide. But I think that it would be desirable that a small but experienced committee should review the developments which have taken place since the Pearce Committee sat in 1921; and I propose to appoint such a committee.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the information which the right hon. Gentleman has given include the people who voluntarily put their heads into gas ovens; secondly, is the gas less impure now than it was when the therm system was started; and thirdly, is the gas more impure now than it was before gas mantles were introduced?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, it is extraordinary what a large proportion of suicides are included in the statistics of deaths from gas poisoning. In 1927, the number of suicides was 943, and the other deaths were 150. That is why I said that in quoting statistics relating to gas poisoning people should bear in mind the enormous proportion of suicides. As regards the second point, the gas is much better since the therm system was introduced, and, what is more to the point, people are now paying for gas as gas, just as you pay for the whiskey in the soda.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint this small committee as soon as possible?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, within a reasonable time. I have to consider the constitution of the committee, but there will certainly be no unnecessary delay.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the President of the Board of Trade agree not to send to Aberdeen this advertisement of a cheap way of committing suicide?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (MECHANISED VEHICLES).

Viscount SANDON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there is a section of the technical research Department of the War Office specifically dealing with the question of elimination of noise in mechanised vehicles?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No section is specially reserved for the purpose mentioned but the whole Department endeavours to achieve silence.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (TRAWLING REGULATIONS).

Mr. MACLEAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, before coming to a decision to open part of the Firth of Clyde previously closed to trawling, the authorities heard the views of those interested in fishing other than representatives of the trawling interests; if so, whether they were favourable to the opening of the Firth to trawling; and whether he will issue a statement giving their views on the matter?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies last Tuesday in which my right hon. Friend intimated his decision not to confirm the bylaw opening a part of the Firth of Clyde to trawling. The Fishery Board, before making the bylaw, had considered the matter from all points of view and were fully aware of the relevant facts and of the opinions of all the interests concerned. In these circumstances, and having regard to the statutory procedure prior to confirmation by
the Secretary of State of a bylaw submitted to him, the Board did not consider it necessary to hold a local inquiry before making the bylaw. The objections to the bylaw have received considerable publicity, and my right hon. Friend sees no object in issuing a statement at this date, especially as the bylaw is not being confirmed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Fishery Board have already agreed to have part of the Firth thrown open to trawling, would the hon. and learned Member inform the House whether it is not advisable that the statements which were made by those interested other than on the side of the fishing industry should be made known, so that we can understand who are behind this decision, and what induced the Fishery Board to give authority for trawling?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: All the relevant facts were before the Fishery Board. The by-law is not valid until it has been confirmed.

Mr. MACLEAN: My question asks the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is going to give to the House the information I have asked for as well as the evidence given to the Fishery Board which led the Board to decide to throw open the Firth for trawling.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They did not decide to open this particular district for trawling. The bylaw proposed that, but it was not confirmed, and sufficient publicity of that fact has been given to the different interests involved.

Mr. MACLEAN: The fact that the bylaw was not confirmed was due to the objections that were taken by the public in the Clyde area—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will inform the House what led the Fishery Board to approve of the opening of the Firth for trawling?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think the House has sufficient information.

Mr. MACLEAN: I must insist, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not
intend to give the House the information, I want to give him notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applications for widows', children's, and orphans' pensions disallowed, since the commencement of the Act, in Scotland, giving the principal reasons for disallowance?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Up to the 21st March, 1928, the number of applications for widows' pensions, including allowances for dependent children, under the Contributory Pensions Act, that had been refused in Scotland was 8,145, and the corresponding number in respect of orphans' pensions was 439. The principal reasons for disallowance of the widows' applications were that the statutory conditions were not satisfied in 4,755 cases owing to the absence of dependent children; in 2,615 cases owing to the deceased husband not having been insured or normally engaged in an insurable occupation at the time of death; and in the majority of the remaining 775 cases because the applicant had remarried or was already in receipt of a service dependant's pension. The applications for orphans' pensions were refused principally on the ground that the statutory conditions as to insurance qualification were not satisfied.

Mr. WHITELEY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the number of voluntary contributors, men and women, respectively, stating how many of these became voluntary contributors since the commencement of the Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The number of voluntary contributors for National Health and Pensions Insurance in England and Wales on 31st December, 1928, is estimated at:

210,000 men.
30,000 women.

Of these it is estimated that some 180,000 men and 22,000 women became voluntary contributors since the commencement of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act.

Mr. MACLEAN: Do these figures include the figures for Scotland or are they confined to England and Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: I have just stated that they are confined to England and Wales.

Mr. WHITELEY: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the cost of administration of pensions under the Widows', Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act by post offices and the Ministry of Health, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: The approximate cost of administration in England and Wales for the year ending 31st March, 1929, chargeable to the Pensions Account is:

£360,000 Post Office.
£418,000 Ministry of Health.
£86,000 Other Government Departments.
These amounts are inclusive of the cost of administration of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts paid by virtue of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (SUPPLIES).

Sir WILLIAM EDGE: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines the names of those coal-mining districts in which the demand is actually in excess of the supply; and whether these arrears are now being overtaken?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The demand for particular qualities of coal has exceeded the supply in most districts, owing partly to the severe weather recently experienced. Some difficulty in overtaking arrears is likely to persist until after the Easter Holidays, but, with the cessation of the present winter demand for domestic coal, and an output of coal greater than in any corresponding period since March, 1924, it may be anticipated that arrears will gradually be overtaken.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand, from the hon. and gallant Gentle-man's
reply, that the number of miners presently unemployed is likely to be reduced in the coming months?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; the hon. Member is not to take that to be the case from my answer.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how far the arrears are due to the fact that there has been a restriction of output under the five counties scheme?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; it is only in particular qualities.

Mr. BATEY: If the demand is in excess of the supply, does the Minister propose to ask the coalowners to work pits that are now closed?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAMWAYS.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport what municipalities have obtained powers to abolish or reduce their tramway systems, and which have extended them, during the last five years, giving the aggregate mileage of reduction or increase; what authorities have replaced them with trackless trolleys during the same period; and what authorities have applied for powers to do so during 1929?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Particulars showing the extent to which municipal authorities have extended or reduced their tramway and trolley vehicle systems are contained in the Annual Returns of Tramways and Light Railways (Street and Roads) and Trackless Trolley Undertakings, from which the hon. Member will see that the mileage of tramways and trolley vehicle undertakings operated by local authorities has, during the five years ended 31st March, 1928, increased by 63 miles and 64 miles respectively. So far as applications to Parliament in the present Session are concerned, I would refer him to the Nottingham Corporation Bill and the Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill.

NON-CORRIDOR RAILWAY CARRIAGES.

Mr. MORRIS: 11.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the number of outrages committed upon women in non-corridor
trains; and will he make representations to the railway companies that all passenger trains should have corridor carriages only?

Colonel ASHLEY: So far as my information goes, deplorable incidents such as those to which the hon. Member refers are of rare occurrence. I am not prepared to press railway companies to discontinue entirely the use of non-corridor stock, but I will call their attention to the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. MORRIS: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that another murder has been committed in a train with non-corridor carriages, and is it not desirable that non-corridor carriages should be abolished?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Will my right hon. Friend consider recommending to the railway companies that in non-corridor carriages there should be a window or grating between the compartments?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that the best thing to rely upon is a communication cord which can be reached, or, in the case of ladies, special carriages.

ROAD MATERIALS (CLACKMANNAN).

Mr. T. KENNEDY (for Mr. MURNIN): 12.
asked the Minister of Transport, if he is aware that the Clackmannan County Council is the only local authority in Scotland which has specified foreign bitumen for its road requirements over the ensuing season and has expressly stipulated that British tar products will not be considered; that the counties of Stirling, Perth, Kinross, and Fife, which adjoin the county of Clackmannan, are all of them using large quantities of British tar for road purposes with satisfactory results; that the price of foreign bitumen is almost double that of British tar at the present time; and whether it is the policy of the Ministry of Transport to make grants from the Road Fund to local authorities which use foreign bitumen and do not invite quotations for British tar?

Colonel ASHLEY: The selection of a material for a particular purpose depends upon other factors as well as first cost, and I understand that the Clackmannan County Council consider that the specification they have adopted is
best suited to their local requirements. I am not disposed unduly to hamper the discretion of local authorities in this respect, but where British supplies of any material are available, it is my policy that British firms should be given an opportunity of tendering.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is there any difference between the requirements of this county and the requirements of adjoining counties; and is the Minister able to give the House any information on the question of the price of this foreign material?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Clackmannan County Council consider that bitumen is best suited for their local needs, especially in view of the character of much of their subsoil. As to prices, I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (CUMBERLAND).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now had an application for his consent to an electric power line from Penrith to Whitehaven via Braithwaite, Wythrop Valley, and Cockermouth; and whether, before his consent is given, he will take into consideration the fact that, though this route is preferable to the route originally proposed, there is still opposition on the ground that the amenities of this area will be interfered with?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not yet received an application for consent to the overhead line referred to. In the event of an application being received, I shall take into careful consideration any representations which the local authorities concerned may desire to make in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POLICE STAFF.

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of detective and police staff employed by the Post Office?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to
a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 7th February.

Mr. DAY: Is it intended to increase the detective staff employed by the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not immediately.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the many robberies that have taken place, that the mails should receive more protection?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have said that the whole matter is under consideration by His Majesty's Government.

STAMP-OBLITERATING MACHINES.

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of machines used for the obliteration of postage stamps that are used by the Post Office; and can he state the number which are made by Norwegian and/or American firms?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total number of stamp-obliterating machines in use by the Department, including a small number on order, is 636. Of this number, 301 were manufactured by a Norwegian firm, and the remainder by American firms.

Mr. DAY: Cannot machines of British make be purchased?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No; that is the reason why no British machines are ordered. In spite of repeated efforts that I have made to interest British firms in this branch of work, through the Federation of British Industries, no British machines so far have been forthcoming.

Mr. THURTLE: What is the matter with private enterprise?

TELEPHONE KIOSKS, WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General in how many, and what towns in Wales telephone kiosks of the standard pattern have been installed; what is the total number of kiosks; and what percentage of increase, if any, has there been in the number of calls made since their installation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On the 28th February, 1929, there were 173 telephone kiosks in 49 towns in Wales. I will write to the hon. Member giving a list of the towns in which kiosks have been installed. I am sorry that details are not available to enable me to reply to the last part of the question.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these telephone kiosks would be required to conquer unemployment?

APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT (MR. ROWLANDS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 19.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the application of Mr. Rowlands, of Anstruther, Fife, for re-employment in the Post Office; whether he is aware that this man was in the service until he enlisted during the War; that he has been kept on a waiting list for the past three years and that when be applied he was 37 years of age; that he was asked to supply references and give detailed particulars and, after exhaustive inquiries were made, was asked to produce his birth certificate, which shows him now to be over 40 years of age, and is now declared ineligible on age grounds for employment; and whether he can take steps to see that applicants for employment are not in future put to hardship, trouble and delay of this nature?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware of the case referred to by the hon. Member. There is no record that Mr. Rowlands served in the Post Office prior to his enlistment, and, if he was so employed, it must have been a temporary engagement which would give him no claim to further employment. Ex-service candidates for Post Office employment are recruited through the Employment Exchanges, who put forward applicants in a recognised order of priority. Mr. Rowlands has at no time been put forward for Post Office employment, but certain inquiries were made regarding his case, following complaints sent by him direct to the Post Office. In the course of these inquiries, discrepancies as regards his age were observed; and it was deemed advisable to see his birth certificate, which showed him to be ineligible by age for a permanent appointment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously justify asking a man for his birth certificate three years after he made his application, when it is discovered that he is now over age?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have pointed out in my answer that in any case his application was not properly made, and should not have been considered.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind answering my question? Does he seriously justify asking for a man's birth certificate, not at the time of his application, but three years afterwards, when he has been found to be too old for employment?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Certainly; the age which is taken into consideration is the age at which the man is taken into the Service.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman oblige me by answering my question? Does he justify asking for a birth certificate, not at the date of the application, but three years afterwards?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not necessary for me to justify it. I have already said that the application was not properly made.

TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS (AGE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General for what reason the Post Office Regulations authorise the employment of telegraph messengers under 14 years of age, whether exempted from the obligation to attend school or not?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I have already explained to the hon. Member, in reply to his question of the 5th February last, the Regulations provide that no candidate for appointment as boy messenger in the Post Office can be accepted until he is legally exempt from further full-time attendance at school, i.e., normally, at the end of the term in which he attains the age of 14. If the hon. Member knows of any instances in which boys have been accepted when under 14 years of age, and will let me have particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Errol, in Perth-
shire, in November, 1927, a boy was employed by the Post Office who was under 14 years of age, and had to make the necessary application to the education authority for exemption?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have just said that I am not aware of any such cases. If the hon. Member directs my attention to that particular case, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the central schools in England pupils have to give a guarantee that they will go on till they are 15 years of age, and that consequently there is no possibility of their being enlisted in the service of the Post Office under these Regulations, since 14½ is the maximum age; and will he take these facts into consideration with a view to amending the Regulations and giving equal opportunity of employment?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that the hon. Member has accurately stated the facts.

TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' DEPOSITS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (for Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN): 16.
asked the Postmaster-General what becomes of the deposit moneys paid by individuals and business firms for telephone service; what did these deposits amount to last year; and what is the amount of interest that would accrue to the Post Office if these deposits were invested in Government securities?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The amount standing in the books as subscribers' deposits is about £2,600,000. It forms in the first instance part of the general balance of the Post Office out of which, after providing the necessary working balances, payments are made to the Exchequer on account of Post Office revenue earned and in hand. Accounts for telephone call fees are rendered at a considerable interval after the services have been performed, and the amounts in question, although standing in the books as deposits, are balanced by the accrued liabilities of subscribers for which accounts have not yet been rendered. No question of investing the amounts therefore arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTIONS, GLAMORGAN-SHIRE.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Mary Ann Saunders, and her son Oliver Tyssul Saunders, of Cwmdare, Aberdare, who were sentenced at the Glamorganshire assize, in June, 1927, Mrs. Saunders to three months' imprisonment in the second division, and her son to six months' imprisonment, for the alleged sending of anonymous letters to various persons living at Cwmdare; is he aware that some 36 anonymous letters were received by some of the same persons during the period Mrs. Saunders and her son were imprisoned; and, as the police have since discovered a person placing anonymous letters in a post-box addressed to the same persons, will he state whether, in view of these new facts, he will have this case re-examined?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the hon. Member knows, I am well acquainted with the facts of this case and, if any new facts have come to his notice since I wrote to him in December last, I shall be glad to consider them if he will kindly inform me of them. As regards the last part of the question, I am satisfied that the local Police, with whom the matter rests, have done and are ready to do everything in their power to secure evidence which would throw fresh light upon the case referred to. At present, there is nothing before me that would justify me in reopening the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).

Mr. G. HALL: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received representation from the Mountain Ash and District Chamber of Trade regarding the purchase by the Lord Mayor's committee of a large quantity of boots and clothing at Cardiff, which was afterwards sent to Mountain Ash for distribution; is he aware that it is claimed by the Mountain Ash tradesmen that they can offer practically the same prices and better value for the goods purchased; and will he call the attention
of the Lord Mayor's committee to the need of purchasing, as far as possible, all goods locally, thereby assisting the tradesmen who are suffering hardship owing to the continued depression?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have not received any representations on this matter from the Mountain Ash and District Chamber of Trade. The question whether goods should be purchased locally or centrally is one, in the first instance, for the Divisional Committee administering the Fund in the area concerned. I am informed that the Central Committee in London have had the position in South Wales under review, and they are fully satisfied with the action taken by the Cardiff Divisional Committee in this matter.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Do they give the local tradespeople an opportunity to tender?

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to ask for notice of any details of procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SALESMANSHIP (INQUIRY).

Sir W. EDGE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the estimated duration of the inquiry of the Government Committee on Education for Salesmanship; and whether an interim Report will be issued within a shorter period?

Lord E. PERCY: It is not yet possible to estimate the duration of the Inquiry. Information is being collected from a large number of sources, not only at home but also overseas, and material has already been obtained which will probably justify the issue of one or more interim Reports within the next few months.

Sir W. EDGE: Is evidence being taken from the Commercial Travellers' Association?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know whether the Committee has done so, but I will inquire.

Sir R. THOMAS: Do any of our British Consuls abroad get a course of training in salesmanship?

TECHNICAL CLASSES (NAVAL RATINGS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that certain municipal colleges, among others Portsmouth, have technical classes; that such classes are assisted by funds from the Education Department and that such classes for the training of hairdressers are not open to men of the Royal Navy undergoing vocational training who desire to take this course and who wish to start in the hairdressing business after serving their time in the Royal Navy; and if he can make any statement on the subject?

Lord E. PERCY: It is a common practice for technical colleges to arrange classes at the special request of, and in close co-operation with, local employers, and admission to such classes is frequently restricted to those actually employed in the trade concerned. The hairdressing class at the Portsmouth Technical College is a class of this kind. The question raised by my hon. Friend is not free from difficulty. I think the real point is that, if we want to use our technical colleges to revive or strengthen the system of apprenticeship in suitable trades, it is inevitable that some of the classes in such colleges should be confined to apprentices.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that these men, some of whom have spent their lives in the Service, cannot join a trade union until they are discharged from the Service? Why should he assist trade unions in this instance in injuring a very deserving class of men?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not assisting a trade union. I am assisting both employers and workers in a particular trade to carry out a system of apprenticeship. I agree that many difficult questions arise when one is doing that, but I do not think, for the reasons I have stated, that the practice can be condemned.

Sir B. FALLE: At what age can a man or boy commence apprenticeship? Why should not he commence at thirty or forty?

Lord E. PERCY: It varies from trade to trade. If my hon. Friend wants information as to apprenticeship ages in various trades, he must give me notice.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it the case that there is no room for these naval men to attend the classes? If there is room, why should they not?

Lord E. PERCY: It is rather a question, if there is a considerable number of men who want to be trained for employment after they leave the Service, whether special classes should not be started for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men have received notice of discharge in the works departments and other departments, Devonport Dockyard, in the last two weeks; whether any more discharges are anticipated; and whether it would be possible to transfer these men under notice of discharge to the C.M. department or other departments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The answer to the first part of the question is 44 men from the works department and five women from another department; 53 men in the works department are to be given notices during the next month. I regret that the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. These discharges are due to the completion of work for which temporary entries were made.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see his way to reabsorb these men, and, if he cannot, will he represent to the Minister of Labour the inadvisability of importing miners into the town, seeing that they will get the jobs rather than these discharged men?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Obviously, we have to discharge men from time to time when the work is done for which they were engaged, and we endeavour, when opportunity arises, to employ them again. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the miners who are sent to this district do not want to go when there are men on the spot out of work?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to assume from the reply that, in case the Navy
were undertaking further contracts, they would always re-employ the discharged men before considering transferees?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Naturally, we always endeavour to employ men whom we have employed before.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the policy of transfer, so far as Devonport and Plymouth are concerned, is non-existent?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND PALESTINE (DUAL CITIZENSHIP).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes before the dissolution to take any steps to confer the rights of British citizenship upon Palestinian citizens and upon British subjects the rights to vote, etc., enjoyed by Palestinian citizens in Palestine?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. Palestinian citizens are not British subjects and can acquire British nationality only by naturalisation, provided they satisfy the conditions of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts. As my right hon. Friend has stated before, it was decided on general grounds of policy to confine the municipal franchise in Palestine to Palestinian citizens. My right hon. Friend does not think it desirable to modify this arrangement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the first place, is there no prospect of British citizens getting the vote in Palestine, and in the second place, has not the Colonial Office contemplated the possibility of dual citizenship in the case of Palestinian subjects?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The international status of Palestine is that of a Class A mandate, governed by a particular clause in Article 22, which recognises Palestine, provisionally, as a separate State, subject to tutelage and control by us. The question the right hon. and gallant Gentleman raises now is one of international interpretation, which makes it extremely difficult to do what he proposes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will there be any objection whatever among Palestinian citizens to enjoy in England the rights of British citizens? Does not the only objection to the right hon. Gentleman's policy arise out of the four of what some other countries represented on the League of Nations may possibly think?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, chat is not correct. We have to carry cut strictly the exact terms of the mandate and generally to avoid dual citizenship, but if a Palestinian subject is resident in this country, or in a British colony, for the requisite length of time, he can apply for naturalisation, as any other non-British subject who was born or resides in a British colony.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to get Palestinian citizens back to Palestine as soon as possible?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Including the organiser of the Liberal party.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

HOME OFFICE (WOMEN).

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 24.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the nature of the work on which female staff are employed who have recently been recruited to his Department; on what basis are they remunerated; and whether such work could have been given to redundant temporary ex-service clerks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Ten women clerks are being temporarily employed on work connected with the returns of employment under the Factory Acts. They receive the rates of remuneration fixed for temporary women clerks, according to the grade in which they are placed. The nature of the work is such that it would be given to women writing assistants if of a permanent character, and it is the usual practice to employ temporary women clerks on writing assistants' work if of a temporary character.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. WHITELEY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the number of the staff employed by the Ministry of Health on work resultant from the operation of
the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, stating the increase of the staff as a result of the introduction of the Act and the cost thereof?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of staff employed by my Department on work resultant from the operation of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act is 1,490, and this number represents the increase of the staff as the result of the introduction of the Act. The estimated cost of the salaries of this staff for the year ending 31st March, 1929, is £340,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard this satisfactory in view of the long delay before the settlement of these cases?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether. This question is simply a request for information.

SALARIES (EASTER).

The following Question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. HAYES:
46. To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the feeling of the staff of the Inland Revenue Department, expressed by protest meetings, at the proposed deferment of the payment of salaries due for the period ending 31st March, 1929, until after the Easter holiday; and whether he will state the circumstances which led the Department to take this decision?

Mr. HAYES: The subject matter of this question has already been satisfactorily dealt with.

P-CLASS CLERKS.

Sir H. NEILD: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give an assurance that the appointment of new entrants to the Civil Service from the approaching open competitive examination for appointment to the clerical classes of the Civil Service shall not be allowed to prejudice the promotion prospects of P-class clerks; and if he will ensure that the entry into those classes of such entrants from outside shall in no way be the means of the discharge of any temporary ex-service clerks?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I give the assurance for which my right hon. and learned Friend asks, namely, the appointment of new entrants from the forthcoming examination in question will not be allowed in any way to prejudice the promotion prospects of "P" class clerks or to result in the discharge from the Government service of any efficient ex-service temporary clerk in order to make room for a successful candidate from that examination.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. KELLY: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insurance officers who are engaged on the work of deciding the claims made for unemployment insurance benefit; and whether all cases of disputed benefit are referred to the chief insurance officer before reference to a court of referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: The chief insurance officer at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, has a staff of 56 insurance officers. All claims to benefit, having the minimum contribution qualification, which are not allowed forthwith at the local office, are referred to the chief insurance officer and his staff at Kew for allowance or disallowance. All such claims which go on appeal to a court of referees must first have been disallowed by an insurance officer at Kew.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the fact then that cases which are being referred to a court of referees have first to be placed before the chief insurance officer?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. KELLY: What is the reason for employing these 56 officers in the districts if all cases of dispute which are to go to a court of referees have to be sent to Kew?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I explained in my answer, the chief insurance officer at Kew has a staff of 56 insurance officers. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the officers in the districts, they have no power to disallow except in cases where it is a matter of calculating the contributions for qualification.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the universal discontent caused by the long delay which takes place in examining these claims at Kew?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of that fact. We do our utmost to expedite matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PREPARATORY DISARMAMENT COMMISSION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission has yet been issued; and whether the question of naval disarmament is included?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The agenda has not yet been issued.

MINORITIES.

Mr. MALONE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any date has yet been fixed for the first meeting of the committee of three set up by the recent Council meeting of the League of Nations to prepare a Report on the subject of minorities; and, if so, what is the date?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee held one meeting before leaving Geneva. The 29th of April is the date fixed for meeting again.

Mr. MALONE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the right conferred by Article 12 of the Minorities Treaties upon any member of the Council of the League of Nations to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or any danger of infraction of the obligations incurred by these treaties, and in view of the treatment of the White Russian and Ukranian minorities in Poland by the Polish authorities, which constitutes an infraction of the treaties, he is prepared to call the attention of the League Council to this infraction and so assist in the more effective carrying out of the minorities treaties?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to endorse the hon. Member's contention that the treatment of these minorities calls for intervention under Article 12 of the Minorities Treaties, but I will consider any information which he may desire to lay before me in support of his view.

Mr. MALONE: Is it not a fact that the German and Hungarian minorities are very ably watched by the German and Hungarian Governments while the Ukranian and White Russian minorities have no great power to protect them, and would if be possible before this conference is called to call for a Report from the British representative in Warsaw?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason for taking action at present. If the hon. Member wishes to put any facts before me, and they are facts which tend to define the position, I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1926 two members of this House saw more than 30 of these Ukranians being tried in a language which they did not understand and that they received life sentences?

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. EDWARD'S ORPHANAGE, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HAYES: 38.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons why assistance this year has been refused in connection with the summer camp of the St. Edward's Orphanage, Liverpool, thus reversing the practice of previous years?

Sir K. WOOD: The general view of my right hon. Friend is that camp expenses ought to be covered by the ordinary contributions paid by boards of guardians and it has not been the practice to approve special payments to the authorities of this school. My right hon. Friend has, however, informed the authorities concerned that he is prepared to consider an application for an increase in the present rate of ordinary contributions, supported by the ordinary information as to the financial position of the school.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MILK SUPPLIES.

Mr. POTTS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce immediate legislation to amend the law so as to ensure that every purchaser of milk shall be supplied with milk containing not less than a legal standard of milk fat and milk solids, other than milk fat, relating to services for the treatment of tuberculosis,
maternity, and child welfare, etc., administered by public authorities under the Public Health Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: Apart from any question as to the practicability of the proposal, my right hon. Friend could not undertake to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY (REPORT).

Mr. MORRIS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons for delaying the publication of that section of the Report of the Mental Deficiency Committee dealing with adults, which was presented on 24th January, 1929; and whether, in view of the conference on the subject to be held next month, he will expedite the issue of the Report?

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the increasing anxiety caused by the delay in the publication of the section in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Mental Deficiency which relates to adults, he will see his way to authorise publication at an early date?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will not be in a position to decide whether or not this part of the Report of the Departmental Committee will be published until he has had the opportunity of considering it fully.

Mr. MORRIS: Seeing that this Report was presented on 24th January, can the right hon. Gentleman say when his right hon. Friend will have had sufficient time to consider it?

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has been very much occupied, but I have no doubt that he will give this matter his early consideration.

Mr. MORRIS: In view of the conference which is to be held some time next week, is it not desirable that this Report should be published as soon as possible?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry if the conference should be inconvenienced.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Do I understand from the indefinite answer to this question that it is still in doubt whether the Report will be published at all, and, in
view of the great importance of this question should not the Report be published?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is considering it personally.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the delay in connection with the provisions of the Local Government Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: I could not undertake to answer what was in my right hon. Friend's mind. I stated that he is otherwise occupied.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is this the same committee as is considering the question of mental deficiency?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFERED WORKERS (DEVONPORT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour in what trades the distressed miners who have been transferred to Devonport and Plymouth are now engaged; and whether all of those who have been transferred have been found work?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I stated in a written reply on the 19th March to the hon. Member, the work to which these men were transferred was generally of an unskilled nature, but the labour involved in ascertaining the precise occupation which each of them is now following would not be justified.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it the case that the Ministry of Labour do not know into what trades these miners have gone, or is it that they do not care?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the work to which they have gone refers generally to unskilled work.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication whatever into which trades these miners have gone? Surely, he can give some rough idea?

Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot the hon. Gentleman suggest to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that he will find this out if he asks in Devon-port, as I have done?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will my hon. Friend consider the building of a wall round Devonport in order to keep out everybody?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman make some inquiry in view of the importance of this matter to the unemployed of Devonport, and let me know roughly where he has placed these men in order that we can see whether Devonport men are being kept out of jobs?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman any further information than that I have given in answer to the question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do I understand that the Minister of Labour positively declines to give any information as to the work given to unemployed miners?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I have already said that these men were transferred to work generally of an unskilled nature, and beyond that I am not able to say anything.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the fact that, when Employment Exchanges were first originated, they were expected to keep statistics as to the movements of men from one trade to another? Will he now inform us whether he intends to take steps to fulfil the functions of the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. BETTERTON: This is really quite another point. The hon. Member is asking me to trace the jobs that these particular men—57 of them—have had from time to time during the last three or four months, and the labour involved, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, would be quite unjustified.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Before these men were transferred from the mining areas, was inquiry made as to the jobs that were vacant in Devonport?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What jobs were vacant?

Mr. BETTERTON: It was ascertained that jobs were vacant.

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions ought to be put upon the Order Paper.

STATISTICS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a figure of unemployment in 1913 which can be compared with the volume of unemployment to-day?

Mr. BETTERTON: The only available statistics of unemployment in 1913 are the percentage of unemployment among members of certain trade unions, which was 2.1 per cent., and the percentage of unemployment in the trades then insured, which was 3.6 per cent. There is, however, I am afraid, not sufficient information available for converting these figures into a number of persons unemployed which would be on a comparable basis with the number so recorded at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the hon. Gentleman any definition of what is normal unemployment since 1913?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot give any. I have said in the answer that the only information which we have got consists of the returns of certain trade unions, the result of which I have just given.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Then will the hon. Gentleman ask the Liberal party?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Did not the Debate of yesterday show that the really sound suggestions for the relief of unemployment are now being carried out by His Majesty's Government?

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. John Allen Bentley, of 8, West View, Paddock, Huddersfield, was denied dependant's benefit for his wife on the grounds that she was engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit; that this profit was said to be the 3s. which she made by having her husband's brother as boarder in the house; and what are the grounds of the withdrawal of 7s. benefit on account of the wife?

Mr. BETTERTON: The ground was the statutory ground stated by the hon. Member, namely, that the wife was engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit. A decision to this effect was given by the umpire in Mr. Bentley's case and this decision is final.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the umpire's decision was taken in connection with a former decision in which he held that 22 shillings was to be the figure by which this profit was to be computed; that only three shillings profit was made, and that the person in question lost seven shillings benefit; and does the hon. Gentleman agree that the umpire should be left unimpeded to carry on injustice of that sort?

Mr. BETTERTON: The umpire's decision is final under the Act of Parliament of 1927.

Mr. HUDSON: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he has power to make recommendations of a general character which might guide the umpire in his decisions?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such power. No such power is given by the Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it was agreed that the umpire should have this power and that, if cases similar to this arose, there should be no consideration of any Amendment of the Act?

Boot and Shoe Industry, Great Britain. Unemployment among Insured Persons.


Date.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.


20th February, 1928
…
5,744
4.2
2,274
1.7
8,018
5.9


25th February, 1929
…
10,005
7.5
9,201
6.9
19,206
14.4

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir WILLIAM BULL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the Channel Tunnel inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I find that owing to the pressure of work due to the imminence of the Dissolution, the course I proposed in my statement on 22nd January for co-operation by the leaders of the three Parliamentary parties in all stages of the proposed inquiry, is not a convenient one at the present time. In all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the best plan for starting the investigation will be to set up, under the

Mr. BETTERTON: The decision of the umpire is final under the Act of 1927, which on this point is in conformity with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as expressed by the Trade Union Council, before the Blanesburgh Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When an obvious defect is discovered arising out of the umpire's decision, does the hon. Gentleman not think that there should be amending legislation?

BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY.

Sir W. EDGE: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest returns of the state of trade in the boot and shoe industry and the unemployment figures for the trade as compared with a year ago?

Mr. BETTERTON: The latest returns show that at some centres of the boot and shoe industry there has recently been an improvement in employment although the position is not so good as it was a year ago. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the unemployment figures desired.

Following is the statement:

auspices of the Committee of Civil Re-search, an impartial inquiry into the economic aspects of the proposed tunnel and other projects for cross-channel communication. I understand that this course is acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Consideration of the political and military aspects of the problem will be postponed until the report on the economic aspects has been received from the Committee of Civil Re-search.

The members of the Committee will be:

Mr. E. R. Peacock (Chairman).
Lord Ebbisham.
Sir Clement Hindley
Sir Frederick Lewis
Sir Henry Strakosch

Mr. MacDONALD: Are we going to get this report from the Committee of Civil Research or from this special committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should propose in a case of importance like this to publish the report direct.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the fact that this inquiry was asked for by the advocates of the Channel Tunnel, will the Prime Minister point out to candidates for Parliament the desirability of not pledging themselves in advance of the report?

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that the objection which has hitherto held up the Tunnel project has been the military objection, why has not that been got out of the way first of all, rather than the reverse?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member, if he reflects for a moment, will remember that the economic aspects of the tunnel have never been examined at all, at least not for years and years. I have set up a committee of extraordinary strength for this purpose, with the object of examining the subject in all its aspects. Supposing they decide that economically, the tunnel is really impossible, the whole question falls to the ground. If, on the other hand, they decide that the economic advantages are considerable, then the question for the Government in power at the time will be to decide whether the economic advantages are such as will outweigh any such military disadvantages as may be put—I do not say they will be put—or not.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any parallel committee of a similar nature is being set up in France?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not that I am aware of; but my hon. Friend must not take that from me as a definite answer.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: But the right hon. Gentleman will agree that such a committee would be useful and helpful?

Mr. MACLEAN: Why is it that a committee of this kind can be set up so soon to deal with the question of the Channel Tunnel, while, on the question of the Forth and Clyde Canal in Scotland no action has been taken?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLE, WARWICKSHIRE (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. HAYES: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement with regard to the appointment of a chief constable for the county of Warwick?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Member is aware, the Standing Joint Committee of Warwickshire passed a resolution appointing, subject to my approval, Commander E. E. B. Kemble, R.N., to be Chief Constable of the County of Warwick. I have since had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Vice-Chairman and the Clerk of the Standing Joint Committee and have informed myself fully of the details of Commander Kemble's career, which has included service in an administrative capacity In more than one appointment. I have also had the advantage of a personal interview with Commander Kemble. After the most careful consideration I am satisfied that Commander Kemble comes within the terms of the Regulations as possessing exceptional qualifications which specially fit him for the post, and in these circumstances I have decided to confirm his appointment.

Mr. HAYES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House his special qualifications, apart from his general record, which everyone knows is excellent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the record of his services is his qualification. He was Lient.-Commander of the Royal Naval Barracks of Chatham, where there are an average of 6,000 to 9,000 men; second in command of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, and on a battleship he was Lieut.-Commander responsible for the organisation, including the administration of the police on board ship.

Mr. HAYES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that service of this kind has no relation at all to the duties he will be called upon to discharge in the County of Warwickshire?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to that, I must say that the Standing Joint Committee must be more cognisant of the requirements of Warwickshire than anybody else. It merely remains for me, having the right of veto, to say whether
in my opinion his professional career is, or is not, of such a character as to afford me reasonable grounds for sanctioning the appointment already made.

Mr. B. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the number of mounted police in this particular county?

Mr. TAYLOR: Does the Home Secretary not think that it is grossly unfair to the people who spend their time—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL PRICES.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he can communicate to the House the views of the Government on the statement furnished by the Oil Companies with regard to the prices of certain petroleum products?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have examined the statement furnished by the Oil Companies, and are satisfied that the "United States Gulf" prices quoted for petrol and kerosene on which the companies' statement is based, are correct. The other items of cost have also been examined, and no reason has been found for disputing them. Such comparisons as are possible have been made between retail prices in this country and abroad. In view of these comparisons and of the figures contained in the companies' statements, it appears that the prices now being charged to consumers in this country are not above the parity of world prices, and that the recent increases do not involve any discrimination against this country. In these circumstances, the Government consider that no action is called for on their part at the present time.
It has been suggested that the Government should use their position in relation to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to force that Company to reduce petrol and kerosene prices in Great Britain. It is necessary, therefore, again to refer to the terms of the arrangement between the Government and the Company as set out in Command Paper 7419 of 1914, paragraph 4 of which states in general terms the nature of the assurance then given that the Government's right of veto will be exercised only in respect of matters of
general policy. The paragraph in question has reference to a letter dated the 20th May, 1914, from the Treasury to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which has not hitherto been published. I think it is now advisable that the exact terms of this communication should be made public, and I will circulate a copy of the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer were aware of the facts now indicated in the answer—namely, that oil was being sold at an uneconomic level in this country prior to the Petrol Duty being introduced by the Government?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I hesitate to answer on the spur of the moment a question of that complicated character, but the whole principle of the Petrol Duty was that it should be passed on to the consumer, and, from the point of view of the economic level at which it is supplied to the people of this country, the Duty makes no difference at all, and was intended to make no difference at all.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask how that squares with the right hon. Gentleman's statement when he introduced the Duty that one justification for it was the low price of petrol in this country, which is now shown to have been at an uneconomic level.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was, at any rate, a good moment to introduce the Duty.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask how the Prime Minister has been able to verify the accuracy of these figures? Has he taken the figures of the companies concerned?

The PRIME MINISTER: The figures have been examined by a perfectly competent Department, and I stand by them.

Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman in answer to a question has given his word that these figures are correct. Am I not entitled to ask him what method he has taken to verify the statements?

Mr. HARDIE: Seeing that the Prime Minister's statement indicates that we
are absolutely at the mercy of some outside bodies for our supplies, has he, or the Government, at any time in the last four years considered the extraction of petrol from our own coal?

Following is the communication:

"Treasury, Whitehall, S.W.

20th May, 1914.

Gentlemen,

With reference to the Financial Agreement which has been duly settled on behalf of His Majesty's Government and sent to your company for signature, I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to offer the following observations regarding the provisions of the amendments proposed to your Articles of Association:

1. By the new Article 91 A it is provided that an ex officio director shall have the right to negative any resolution which may be proposed at a board or committee meeting, but that the other directors, or a majority of them, shall have the right to appeal therefrom to His Majesty's Government, which, for the purpose of the Article, is defined as meaning the Treasury and the Admiralty. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would not be prudent, or, indeed, practicable, to qualify the generality of the light of veto. On the other hand, it is felt that the ordinary directors (meaning by that expression the directors other than the ex officio directors), and incidentally the members of the company, should have some safeguard in the matter. It is thought that the right which is to be given by the new Article to the ordinary directors of appealing to the two Departments will afford the requisite safeguard. The ordinary directors will, by appealing to the Departments, be in a position to ensure in regard to any particular question that the right of veto is not exercised until the question has been considered and adjudicated upon by the Departments.

I am to add that His Majesty's Government do not propose to make use of the right of veto except in regard to matters of general policy, such as—

(1) The supervision of the activities of the company as they may affect questions of foreign naval or military policy;
(2) Any proposed sale of the company's undertaking or proposed change of the company's status;
(3) The control of new exploitation, sites of wells, etc.;
(4) Sales of crude or fuel oil to foreigners, or such exceptional sales to other persons on long contracts as might endanger the due fulfilment of current Admiralty contracts;

and that their interference (if any) in the ordinary administration of the company as
a commercial concern will be strictly limited to the minimum necessary to secure these objects. Further, in the case of any such interference, due regard will be paid to the financial interests of the company in which, under the proposed arrangement, the Government have themselves so large a stake.

While His Majesty's Government are not prepared to enter into any binding agreement in regard to the exercise of the veto, you are at liberty to treat the above as an assurance as to the general lines upon which they will act in the matter, not only in regard to the Anglo-Persian Company, Limited, but also in regard to the subsidiary companies.

2. By the words added to Article 96 it is provided that the ex officio directors shall be members of every committee of the board. His Majesty's Government do not, however, contemplate that both the ex officio directors should always be present at committee meetings. Occasions may arise when it may be desirable that both the ex officio directors should be present, but as a general rule the presence of only one of them would be necessary. Indeed, at some meetings it may not be necessary that either of them should be present.

3. You are at liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think fit at the pro-nosed meetings of the shareholders.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed.) JOHN BRADBURY.

Messrs. The Anglo-Persian Oil

Company, Limited.

Winchester House.

Old Broad Street.

London, B.C."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BUDGET DATE).

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister when he proposes that the House shall resume after Easter and what business he proposes to take?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House of Commons will reassemble after the Easter Recess on Monday, 15th April, and on that day the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
The general discussion on the Budget Resolutions will take place on the following Tuesday and Wednesday.
Thursday will be the fifth Allotted Supply day.
The business for Friday will be announced later; and, if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Five of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 121.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzont, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kant, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pilcher, G.


Astor, Viscountess
Grant, Sir J. A.
Preston, William


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. C. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ralne, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hamilton, Sir George
Rentoul, Sir Gervals


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Helbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Bill, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Storry-Deans, R.


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Churchill, Rt. hon Winston Spencer
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Colman, N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Maclntyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Duff
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major Sir William
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derttond)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Margeszon, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Meller, R. J.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ellis, R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wragg, Herbert


Flelden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'fd.)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Forrest, W.
Nuttall, Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Oakley, T.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Frasar, Captain Ian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Frederick Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Blinded, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Ammon, Charles George
Benn, Wedgwood
Briant, Frank


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Broad, F. A.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Druremcnd


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clarke, A. B.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Lowth, T.
Taylor R. A.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edge, Sir William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Tomlinson, R. P.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen c.


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben



Harris, Percy A.
Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shield, G. W.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Richard John Russell, Esquire, for County of Cheshire (Eddisbury Division).

Charles William Baillie Hamilton, Esquire, commonly called the hon. Charles William Baillie Hamilton, for Borough of Bath.

Jennie Lee, for County of Lanark (Northern Division).

James Blindell, Esquire, for County of Holland with Boston.

MINERS' PENSION BILL,

"to provide for the allocation of part of the moneys standing to the credit of the Welfare Fund from time to time to a fund, and to provide for the payment of pensions thereout to aged miners on their ceasing to work in or about coal mines, and to extend the period during which payment shall be made into the Welfare Fund," presented by Sir William Edge; supported by Major Owen, Mr. Fenby, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Crawfurd; to be read a Second time upon Monday 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Lewes Corporation Bill,

Metropolitan Railway Bill,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Metropolitan Water Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the use of the Mount Vernon Hospital Estate and the application of certain of the funds and investments in the hands of the Mount Vernon Hospital (Incorporated); and for other purposes." [Mount Vernon Hospital Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Preston to construct a weir across the River Ribble and to execute street improvements; to make further provision with reference
to their electricity undertaking and the finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Preston Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Haslingden to provide and run omnibuses; to make further provision with respect to their omnibus and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Mount Vernon Hospital Bill [Lords],

Preston Corporation Bill [Lords],

Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bilk.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Short Title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times), 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), 4 (Amendments of Part 11 of Army Act), 5 (Amendment of s. 145), and 6 (Application to Air Force), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of death penalty in case of cowardice.)

For the purpose of abolishing death as a penalty for cowardice the following amendments shall be made in the Army Act:

(1) In section four, paragraph (7) shall be omitted:
(2) In section five the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (6):

or (7) misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice.—[Mr. R. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 p.m.
This Clause, which stands on the Order Paper in the names of two of my hon. Friends and myself, has as its object the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice, and the removal of the crime of cowardice from the Section which brings it under the head of the death penalty, and will put it in the Section under which it will only be possible for a sentence of penal servitude to be passed. Another year has gone very quickly since we had the annual Debate on this subject in Committee, and, as each succeeding year passes, it becomes in one way more difficult to discuss this subject, because the War memories become dimmer. At the same time, perhaps, from another point of view, it becomes easier to have a calm, quiet and dispassionate discussion, and I hope that the Committee this afternoon will so discuss this subject, which, I am afraid, the newspapers to-
morrow, if anyone takes the trouble to refer to the Debate at all, will probably describe it, quite truthfully as a hardy annual. It may be asked whether these Debates, which take place every year in this House, do any good. Let us look back and see. Eight years ago, on the annual occasion on which we discussed the Army Bill, the main Debate took place, not upon the death penalty at all, but upon the question of the abolition of what was known as Field Punishment No. 1 or, as the soldiers used to call it, "crucifixion." In that year, 1921, the then Under-Secretary of State for War, who is still a Member of the House, I am glad to say, although he no longer holds any office, said that a committee had been set up which was called the Army and Air Force Acts Revision Committee. He said that that Committee
do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1.
He went on to quote a statement of General Macready when Adjutant-General:
The abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1921; col. 886, Vol. 140.]
As a result of that, the Committee of this House on that occasion voted as follows: 49 in favour of abolishing Field Punishment No. 1, and 106 against. In the following year, 1922, a similar result was reached. In spite of that very definite statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for War, in spite of the fact that he had stated that a committee had gone into the whole question and had come to that decision with regard to Field Punishment No. 1, and in spite of the fact that he quoted General Macready, and might have quoted a large number of other military officers of almost equally high rank, that to abolish Field Punishment No. 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences, we find in the following year, 1923, that the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Agriculture, who, at that time, held the position of Under-Secretary of State for War, said on the annual Debate:
The position is this, that we believe that Field Punishment No. 1 is no longer necessary, and….may now be abolished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1923; col. 1513, Vol. 162.]
Since that time no one in this House, or, to my knowledge, anyone of importance
outside, has made any attempt to re-impose Field Punishment No. 1, and it is, I think, generally accepted in this House, and in the country and the Army, that Field Punishment No. 1 has been abolished altogether. Following that, the House turned its attention to the death penalties which existed at that time for a great number of offences, many of which, in the opinion of many Members of the House, were not offences which merited the punishment of death. Debate after Debate took place, but with no further success from the point of view of those of us who are interested in this question, until 1925, when two offences were struck off the list. Passing over 1926 and 1927, in both of which years we had a Debate with nothing resulting, we got to last year, when we made a considerable advance, eight offences altogether being then abolished. Perhaps it will be of interest in this Debate if I recall exactly what concessions the Government made in this matter last year. I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The effect of this Clause (Clause 4) is to abolish the death penalty on active service for:

(1) leaving a commanding officer to go in search of plunder;
(2) forcing a safeguard;
(3) forcing or striking a sentinel;
(4) breaking into any house or other place in search of plunder;
(5) when acting as a sentinel, sleeping or being drunk on a post;
(6) striking or using or offering violence to a superior officer in the execution of his office;
(7) disobeying in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by a superior officer in the execution of his office;
(8) altering or interfering with any air signal without authority.

The only military offences on active service which will remain punishable with death will be mutiny, treachery, cowardice, desertion and leaving a guard, etc., without orders, or in the case of a sentinel leaving a post without being regularly relieved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1928; col. 34, Vol. 216.]
All these offences were abolished by the Government, and unanimously agreed to by the House, although there was in the House last year, and, indeed, there has been since these discussions have been initiated, a considerable number of Members, many of them with long
and distinguished service in the Army, who have repeatedly got up and said, that if you have any further weakening of the rigid, cast-iron discipline of the Army, which is so necessary to the success of our arms in times of war, disaster will come upon the Army. In spite of that, we have gradually gone on, until last year the Government went out of their way to delete eight offences from the list. It is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman, who is evidently going to reply on behalf of the Government to-day, said in the debate last year, for some inexplicable reason which I do not understand, that no one in the House or anywhere else could lay the flattering unction to his soul that, public opinion had had any effect upon the War Office, and that these things had been done because it was no further good keeping them there, as they represented crimes that never happened, crimes that could not well be defined. I understand that that was the argument he developed, although what the purpose of it was I have not yet been able to understand. Perhaps he will elaborate it when he replies this afternoon. In any case, here we are again, those of us who do not mind being put into the somewhat unenviable position of having to get up regularly each year trying to make some headway, and, like Oliver Twist, asking for more this year.
We are making what I am perfectly-sure everyone will agree is a very modest request, and one which we think the Government might accept. We have no desire to widen discussion, and I do not think it is necessary to say, as far as I am concerned at least, that we have no desire to make any party capital out of it. These debates have been distinguished in the last four or five years by the fact that from all parts of the House the discussion has taken place, and we have thrashed out the real merits of the question without any desire to score party points. I hope we shall follow that precedent this afternoon. Those associated with me desire to confine the discussion this afternoon to seeing whether we can achieve one step further. The Government last year abolished eight of the offences; we want them to abolish one more, and that is the offence which is described in the Act as cowardice.
We have this debate year after year, and this will be the last chance that this Government will have of dealing with the matter. If the present Government do not concede this small point, the next Government, whatever Government it may be, will certainly grant it. The reasons for our request have been given over and over again. In the first place, cowardice cannot be defined. In the Army Act there are two pages devoted to 41 definitions of all kinds of expressions which appear in the Act, but there is not a definition of cowardice. It is stated that
The expression 'Court of Law' includes a court of summary jurisdiction.
The expression 'constable' includes a high constable.
The expression 'police authority' means a commissioner.
The expression 'horse' includes a mule.
One would have thought that there would be a definition of the crime of cowardice, but the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Duff Cooper) knows perfectly well, because he freely and frankly admitted it last year, if my memory serves me correctly, that it is impossible to give a definition. Nobody can define cowardice, the hon. Member said, but everybody knows it when they see it. In modern warfare, as was seen in the last War, and it will be seen more so, unhappily, if we are ever plunged into another war, you cannot draw a clear line of distinction between heroism and cowardice. The man who is a hero one day may be a coward the next day. I made a statement last year, which was generally accepted by the Committee, that a man was a coward at night and a hero in the morning. That is my own experience. Perhaps some hon. Member with medical knowledge may be able to explain to us why that should be so. During the time that I was on active service, I noticed that I was always frightened if I was cold and shivering with cold. Where it was cold and where there was no chance of getting warm, I was frightened, and I noticed that others became frightened; but when one could be warm, the surroundings did not seem to have the same frightening effect. As it is impossible to define cowardice, we urge that as one of the reasons why it is unwise to retain upon the Statute Book this particular crime, the penalty for which is death; a crime which is
vague and which in the development of modern warfare will tend to become more vague and indefinite. Examples of cowardice have been quoted in the Debates over and over again and I will not give any, but will merely make my statement.
We say that there is no evidence that the fact of cowardice being regarded as a crime punishable with the death penalty, is a deterrent. We have asked on previous occasions that some hon. Members should give us evidence that because the death penalty exists for the crime of cowardice, which cannot be defined, that that penalty acts as a deterrent. So far as we can judge, some of us from our own experience and some from hearsay, we do not think that it is possible merely by putting a crime of this kind on the Statute Book in the Army Act, and saying that anyone who is a coward may be shot, that you are going to turn a man from being a coward into a hero. I have listened to all the Debates on this subject during the past six years and I have never heard anyone give evidence that this particular penalty is a deterrent of cowardice. There is not one reason that can be given for retaining cowardice as a crime punishable with death, that does not equally apply to retaining the other crimes that have been abolished in recent years, including field punishment No. 1, well known as "crucifixion."
Anything that may be said by right hon. Members from the Government Bench, who are expressing the official view of the Army Act, or by officers of high command, against the concession for which I am appealing this afternoon could be said with equal force against the other penalties which the Government have voluntarily abolished. If not, perhaps the Financial Secretary to the War Office would point out the distinction, perhaps he will tell us what is the distinction between the eight penalties which were abolished last year, and the one which they have not decided to abolish? Last year the Financial Secretary, in replying on behalf of the War Office, said that the difficulty was that cases of cowardice—I hope that I am not misinterpreting him—occurred in an emergency, and that when everything was going well, when the troops were in good heart and things were going with
a swing, there was no trouble of this sort, and no likelihood of any cases of cowardice. He said that what we had to guard against in warfare was the emergency that arises when things are going wrong. Something may happen which may mean steps having to be taken to stop the rot. My interpretation of that argument—I know the Financial Secretary will not agree with it—is that Tommy Atkins is likely to be a brave fellow and a hero so long as we are winning the war, and we have the enemy on the run, but we have to be ready with a deterrent in case things go wrong. It means that the Army have to be ready for that kind of emergency, when somebody at the top has blundered and the men are losing their nerve, and when, in order to try and save the situation, they say, "Let us shoot a few privates."[Interruption.] I said that I did not expect the Financial Secretary would accept that interpretation. I am giving it as my interpretation of the argument about emergency. It means that at a time when, perhaps, men are being needlessly slaughtered and the troops are likely to lose their nerve, there is always a temptation, instead of trying to put things right at the top, to shoot a few privates and try to save the situation in that way. I am sorry to have introduced an acrimonious note, which I did not intend.
We are on the eve of the General Election. I do not expect that this question will be an issue at the General Election and certainly I have no desire or intention to make it an issue, but members of the Conservative party know perfectly well, although we cannot expect them to admit it, that complaints are being made amongst the supporters of the Government that the Government are out of touch with the people of the country. My suggestion to the Government is that by accepting this new Clause they would have an opportunity of doing something which would be highly popular in the country. It may be a small matter, people may say that there is not a war and that there are no signs of war, but this is a question which is intensely human. If the Government were to concede this small point and would transfer cowardice from the death penalty section to the penal servitude section, they would take a step which would be highly
popular with members of their own party, who always seem to go very reluctantly into the Lobby at the request of the Whips on this particular question.
I am not urging this concession merely because it would be popular with the people of the country. If that were the only reason, I should not urge it. I urge it because I believe that just as two death penalty punishments were abolished in 1925 and eight offences were abolished last year, including Field Punishment No. 1, so I believe that if the Government were to go one step further and finish the job, their action would be welcomed by all classes. This concession would finish the matter so far as my party is concerned. We have stated publicly that, in regard to the crimes of treachery and mutiny, we do not desire to alter the existing law, but on this point of cowardice we do feel that we have a strong case, and I urge it not merely because it would be popular, but because I am convinced that it would not have the slightest injurious effect upon the discipline of the Army.

Viscount SANDON: I am reluctant to intervene in a Debate of this character, as I expect every hon. Member would be. As the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) has truly said, these points are made year after year, and, as far as I remember, they have been more or less answered, but, apparently, not to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said about this not being a party issue. I cannot imagine anything less suitable for a party issue. His party deserve credit for the fact that they have not made it a party issue, and credit also rests with my own party on the same ground. I think the hon. Member and his supporters have entirely misunderstood the whole position. They have misconceived our ideas on the matter. They ask us to define cowardice. The hon. Member must have seen, as many of us have had many opportunities of seeing, what cowardice really does not mean. I think that is the best way of putting it. There are so many people who do things which may be serious, but which cannot be interpreted as cowardice. Cowardice in the Army Act is not used in the sense in which the hon. Member interprets it. It is quite out of the question to attempt
to make a definition of that kind, and when the hon. Member brings up the question as to whether we, as individuals, have or have not been guilty of any moral crime, he is taking hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is not a question of the psychology of the individual, of which we heard a great deal both last year and the previous year. The individual aspect does not really count.
No one, I believe, pretends that this is a matter of punishment, or of threatening to punish, because it will make the individual a better man. I know very well that many people who have been involved in this crime have shown real personal courage of a standard to which I could not hope to aspire. They have had physical trials to go through which it would be almost impossible to stand up against, and no doubt if we had been placed in similar circumstances most of us would have failed, but that is not the issue. It is not a question of whether they deserve death, but it is a question of this penalty acting as a deterrent in the heat of a disaster or of appalling fire. The hon. Member opposite cannot ride off that question so easily as he attempted to do. I think he was unfair when he said, or I understood him to say, that cases of emergency that arose in the War were due to the people on top. They often were, but to say that when a crisis arose it was automatically the fault of those on top is not true. Occasionally it was the fault of the enemy?
The existence of this penalty does have a very definite effect, subconscious very often, in the men concerned knowing that they have something behind which at a moment of crisis, when there is grave danger, can be brought into action. Figures have been given by the Government that in fact this penalty is very seldom carried out, but you need just that legal authority of being able to carry it out when it is absolutely necessary, although there are many cases where it was given up entirely on the order of the Commander-in-Chief. To bring in the question of discipline is beside the issue. You have to think here of the safety of others—the man's own fellows—and of the needs of victory. Nothing counts in war except victory, and the question of a breach of discipline does not arise. There is no breach of discipline, in my view, which could deserve the penalty of death.
The hon. Member opposite said he had never heard anyone give any experience of the value of this penalty from the point of view of it being a deterrent. I thought they had. I do not think I am in the least unusual, but I have had a certain amount of experience in that line myself. There must be many Members of this House who remember the section of the front called the Steenbeeke. I do not think anyone who was there is ever likely to forget the experience. It was that area between the St. Julien Road and Military Bridge, and I remember once being summoned up there to take over because every officer there, and a good many men as well, had been killed only two or three hours before. It was a unit I was only with for a short time, and was one of the finest of the many with which I had the privilege of serving in the War, but hon. Members can imagine what the state of moral would be in any collection of human beings in circumstances of that character. When I arrived there, the first thing that happened was that the sergeant came and said, "I am not feeling very well. Can I go down to the wagon lines"? I let the man go, though there was only one other non-commissioned officer left, and shortly afterwards he too came up, with some other men, and they also said they were not feeling very well and that they wanted to go back to the lines. Then, of course, I realised what was going on. There was nothing wrong in it, and I am making no reflection on those men—indeed, I saw the same thing in the Great Advance. Probably every Member of this House would behave in the same way under similar conditions. It was because the conditions that prevailed in that section at that moment were worse than could be borne by any human being, unless there was some authority, of which they were aware, acting on their minds, in the state in which they were, dulled and overcome by the shelling and bombing and tragedy all round them, with their best pals and leaders in the battery lying dead, to keep them at their post. How could you expect them to be normal? They were not normal.

Mr. J. JONES: You would shoot them for not being normal.

Viscount SANDON: The hon. Member may not agree, but I do not think I am
saying anything that it is not true. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with my way of putting it, but I am making no reflection on anyone, but those involved were, I am certain, as fine soldiers as could be found and had all the qualities of courage for which I have nothing but intense admiration and which are required of a soldier; but I say that that authority was needed to bring out the resistance power of those men, which is so necessary in decisive times. Therefore, I think all this discussion of justice, of equity and of the interests of the men themselves is beside the point. It seems to me that in war the sinking of the welfare of the individual in the common good, and the fact of a man being prepared to waive all personal claims, even to justice if you like—it is justice, in one sense—is one of the finest things that it brought out. I do not pretend to defend the justice of shooting a man for a crime of that kind. That is not the point. It is grossly unjust, but a man in a crisis, in war-time, is prepared for his country to waive all his rights, for the sake of the big thing.

Mr. JONES: You will not do it in peace time.

Viscount SANDON: If a man was not prepared to do that, I take it that he would not go into the Army, and would be a conscientious objector, but I think I am not putting it unfairly as the point of view of the average man, and even as the point of view of the vast majority of men who went into the Army. They were prepared to sink themselves in the greater good of winning the War, of standing by their comrades and gaining victory to their arms. I feel that there is a grave danger in making any concessions in this direction. As the hon. Member opposite said, we are now a long way from the War, and that is just the difficulty. These things will have to be put into practice in the atmosphere of war, and that is what they have to be judged by. It may be said that when a war comes we can always meet the situation as it arises, perhaps by a fresh Amendment being brought into the Act, but it is a question whether it is not wiser that our standards for the next war, should one unhappily arise, should be made now, when we can judge them
more dispassionately, than that we should run the danger of being carried off our feet and of going too far in the opposite direction when the war was actually upon us. I do not think anyone would accuse me of being a blood and thunder man. That is not my line at all. I should be very sorry to have anyone think that I would want to say anything to disparage the finest set of men with whom I have ever been associated in my life, but I really believe that these men in the Army did find this provision a safeguard to themselves, and did find it to the benefit of the whole show; and, after all, it is the whole show that counts, and in war the individual is scrapped.

Mr. J. JONES: And after the war as well.

Miss WILKINSON: Hear, hear!

Viscount SANDON: In war the individual is proud not to count; he sinks himself in the good of the whole. The hon. Lady opposite seems distressed at that, but there is much to be said for the atmosphere of sacrifice so typical of the War, when the individual was merged into something finer than the question of just what he merited. Many people feel that that is one of the aspects of war we most miss to-day.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: There are two points in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) that I find it utterly impossible to understand. One is that he says, quite bluntly, that the infliction of the death penalty is unjust, and then he proceeds to defend it. After all, this is a judicial act with which we are dealing, and if it cannot be defended on the ground of justice, it seems to me to be common sense that it cannot be defended at all. The other point is that the Noble Lord says, what is even more extraordinary, that this penalty is needed to bring out the resistance power of the men. What is it that destroyed the resistance power of the men at the time of which he was speaking? It was fear, the fear of death, obviously; and he proposes—a very homeopathic remedy—to impose the fear of death in another form in order to revive that resistance power. It seems to me a nonsensical proposition, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison),
who moved this new Clause, on the interesting and common-sense way in which he attacked this point. If we can get rid of the death penalty for cowardice, we shall have got rid of the main evil that confronts us.
This is the point of attack, because, after all, the great point about the crime of cowardice, if we call it so, is that it is not a wilful act, it is not something that a man does upon reflection. Mutiny, desertion, leaving a post in the face of the enemy for some other reason than cowardice—these may be things which are thought out beforehand, and I can quite imagine that under those circumstances a knowledge that the death penalty might follow might have some deterrent effect; but when a man is in a panic of fear, which is a physical matter, something which paralyses his very limbs, the actual terror that is close upon him far outweighs the distant prospect of a court-martial which may or may not take place and a penalty which may or may not be imposed. Therefore, on the very ground of deterrence, which was the only ground the Noble Lord could really find, his whole case collapses. The case which the Noble Lord put forward is not one of deterrence at all. He told us a very interesting story about some people coming and asking him if they might go back from the line, but he produced no evidence to show that if there had been a death penalty there overhanging those men they would not have acted in that way. There was a death penalty hanging over them all the time. The men were trying it on, so to speak; they were in a panic; they would very much more gladly have been somewhere else, and I do not blame them.
The death penalty had nothing whatever to do with the story at all, one way or the other, and the Noble Lord has not produced any evidence in his speech in answer to the challenge of the hon. Member for North Tottenham that any instance should be produced in which the death penalty has really acted as a deterrent. On the other hand, there is the instance of a whole Corps, the Australian Forces, who had not got this deterrent, and no one here will say that, whatever other complaints may have been made—and they were very small ones, mainly taken from a stiff, British, dis-
ciplinary point of view—they were not the bravest people it would be possible to come across. If they could preserve their morale without this incentive, why cannot we? Is it to be said that our troops, from these islands, are inferior in moral courage to those of any other land in the world? As a matter of fact, I should have thought it stood out as a matter of psychology and common sense that you cannot make a man brave by the impulse of fear.
It has been said that this is a difficult crime to define. I knew a court-martial of four soldiers who, in an advanced post, were suddenly surprised by the enemy and separated from their arms. They were tried for cowardice and condemned. It may have been improper to get that distance from their weapons, but clearly that does not come in the definition of cowardice, and the deduction is that they should have mot the enemy with their hands. I cannot say that I would have done it. In that case, owing to the clemency of the great Commander-in-Chief whom all soldiers revered so much, the sentence was not carried out. The fact remains, however, that the men were exposed to that risk, and the penalty ought not to exist when it is impossible to define it on any lines of justice, or to give any justification for it from the point of view of the good of the Army. This penalty is not necessary in order to make the troops do their best, and I hope that we shall, in the calm consideration of peace time make this great reform in our military system.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I agree with the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) that the objections put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) to the new clause do not meet the case. It is surely the business of those who defend shooting for the crime of cowardice to prove the one thing that justifies it, if anything can, and that is its effect as a deterrent. I am prepared to take the line, if that could be shown that there is a case for capital punishment for a crime of that kind. After all, war is a big atrocity, and I am prepared to accept minor atrocities inside the bigger one. So long as humanity is prepared to tolerate such an atrocity as war, humanity will have to recognise that
war cannot be made with kid gloves or rose water. The Noble Lord should really endeavour to justify the one point he makes for the retention of this punishment, namely, that it is merely a deterrent. What does this punishment amount to? A man is tried by court martial, sentenced to be shot at dawn and set up behind a white sheet. I am not sure that that was the universal practice on the Western Front but it was the practice partially. The man is placed behind a white sheet, and a number of men are told to shoot at a certain part of the sheet. Only some of these men have active bullets; some of them have blank cartridges, so that no one knows who is responsible for the actual death of the man. That kind of thing is the last word, not merely in inhumanity, but in callousness in our treatment of a matter of this kind. The question of cowardice in front of the enemy is not a moral or intellectual question; it is not a question of psychology so much as a question of the actual physical effect of the circumstances of the moment.
I know of what I am speaking, because I remember my own baptism of fire. I remember being in the middle of Ploegsteert Wood when the Germans made a terrific attack. I remember that I was very calm, more calm than I usually am, and extraordinary cool from an intellectual point of view, but I was shaking all over physically, and I could not control my limbs. I was thinking about it as a most extraordinary thing which I had never experienced in my life before. Will anybody say that any subconscious feeling of the possibility of being shot at dawn would have made any difference to any act that I might have committed under those circumstances? Fortunately it was just an artillery attack, and it did not call at that moment for the exercise of physical courage, and I hesitate to form an opinion as to what my action would have been under these purely physical circumstances. I was not emotionally or intellectually affected, but I was physically affected. Bearing in mind the fact that there are, especially in times of war, hundreds of thousands of boys of 18 and 19, who, if they are not already in the Army, are forced into the Army in a time
of emergency, is it seriously suggested that any intellectual consideration of the possibility, remote or otherwise, of being shot, really would affect that terrible physical condition which is the result of circumstances such as I have described.
I therefore, plead with the Government to give way upon this point. The great Australian Army was able to do without it, and I know from my contact with the Australian soldiers that they were quite as brave as British soldiers. In some cases they were often braver, if we regard bravery as that excess of action and going to a thing without consideration; they were more likely to do reckless things than our men. That was characteristic of the Australians, and I do not think that if the death penalty for cowardice had been imposed upon the Australian Army it would have made any but the worst difference to it. From my own knowledge and experience during the Great War, I urge the Government to look at this question in peace time not from the point of view of the old Army type of mind, and the old idea that you have a body of uneducated and illiterate people who have to be disciplined in the hardest possible way, but to realise the new circumstances and, by doing justice to the soldiers, trust to the results in the case of a possible future war.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Speaking as one who was not abroad but was kept in this country, it seems to me that there is a danger of mistaking cowardice for fear. When the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) was trembling all over he may have been suffering from fear, but he was not suffering from cowardice. Fear, from my point of view, is a condition from which the very bravest suffer. We have heard over and over again that the very bravest men have confessed to fear. Cowardice is an entirely different thing. I do not think that it is physical at all, or that the fear of the death penalty is a deterrent. My impression of cowardice is that it is a question of moral control, and not a physical question. Over and over again I have had occasion in medical circumstances to come across crisis among patients, and I have found that very often women who, one would have thought, were delicate, have shown the
highest type of courage owing to some moral force within them. On the other hand, I have seen great hefty men who, one would have thought, would have been full of animal courage and pluck, become children in a crisis.
When the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office replies I should be glad if he would try and convince the Committee and me that the death penalty for cowardice does really do any good. I would make no exception in the case where a man's cowardice risked the lives of his fellows, because the lives of the majority are more valuable than the life of one man. I feel strongly, however, that we are keeping in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act a crime for which the individual is not responsible, and in committing which he does not mean to do any harm to anybody. Simply through his lack of training or lack of moral control, he does something in being a coward of which he is ashamed. No man who is a coward is proud of it. It may be a temporary or constitutional condition, and the man despises himself for it. Is the death penalty a deterrent from it? In saying that shooting a man for cowardice is not just, the noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) destroyed the whole of his case. If it is not just to shoot a man for cowardice, the crime should not be in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act. I am not quite certain that a man who shows cowardice, which is a moral effect and beyond the control of the individual should, of necessity, suffer the death penalty.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: When in 1923 we debated this Bill in a long and protracted all-night sitting, I ventured to take part in the discussion on this subject, and we were helped by a large number of distinguished soldiers on all sides of the House who viewed the Debate from the point of view of their own war experience. If the Financial Secretary to the War Office is compelled to resist this new Clause, I frankly recognise that it is a difficult task for him, because no one likes to be put in the position of being accused, as it were, of being in favour of shooting anybody. No general or army officer giving a decision that involves the
death penalty to one of his men can be in any but a very unhappy state. I can visualise what is in his mind, and I can quite understand his arguing in this way, "This power is given me by Parliament to use under circumstances of which I must be the judge." He is to be the judge of cowardice. We have just had a very sincere speech from an hon. Member who is a medical man and differentiates between what he calls fear and cowardice, but I would defy any general, with a war in being and in the atmosphere of a court martial, to say which is fear and which is cowardice. Who can possibly determine?
I remember during the War hearing the story of a young fellow, decent, clean-minded and brave, who volunteered at the age of 18, became an officer and won distinction. He told me something that impressed me more than anything else with the hell and horror of war and the difficulty of laying down by law any code of rules in war. He said he was once faced with a situation in which a lot of young fellows of 18 and 19 years of age, practically boys, got absolute fright at the first heavy bombardment they experienced. Was that cowardice or fear? This bombardment was something absolutely different from everything they had been brought up to, different from everything to which they had been trained, and they all lost their nerve. It was this officer's job to shoot a number of those young men to stop the stampede. His story created in my mind an impression which I have never forgotten. I would point out that in all future wars the defence of the country, of any country, will not rest with the professional soldiers; it will be a war where the great mass of the civilian population will have to be called to the defence of the country.
If that be the fact, what is the good of arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent? If it is to be argued that the death penalty is a deterrent to cowardice, or whatever is may be called, that presupposes that all these young fellows will be arguing to themselves "What is to be the penalty if I run away?" But they do not argue that. They have no time to argue about that; they have no time to think. The whole thing is so foreign to their nature, and to every
environment to which they have been accustomed, that whatever they do is done in a panic, without fear of the consequences, without thought of the consequences. That being the case, I am convinced that the death penalty cannot be a deterrent.
I can give an extreme case to illustrate my point. It is the case of a man who came over with Casement. He was a regular soldier, he deserted, and he was a traitor of the worst degree. He was corrupted in Germany and took the risk of coming over with Casement. Casement was hanged, as we know, but by an unfortunate blunder on the part of somebody into which I need not go now, this man was not tried. How can you put a ease such as that, where there is a deliberate attempt to play the part of traitor to the country, in the same category with that of hundreds of young soldiers who become soldiers for the first time and in face of a bombardment lose their nerve? To shoot young soldiers under such circumstances is not only a crime, but it is not a deterrent. I do not think the existence of such a penalty influences them in the least. Therefore, I would ask those speaking for the War Office to keep in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend behind me and remember, whatever views the professional soldiers may have about discipline and the old methods of the past, that we shall in a future war find ourselves faced with an entirely new situation. I honestly say that the death penalty is a mistake; it is a blunder and is no deterrent; and for that reason I shall support the Amendment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I think that the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), who introduced this Debate, will be satisfied that the subject has been discussed in an atmosphere of calm and quiet and with a lack of passion. It has been an interesting Debate. Before I deal with the general question, I would like to say that there is one very good reason why the Government should refuse to accept this new Clause, and that is that it entirely fails to carry out the intentions of those who framed it. While it would remove from the Army Act the offence of
misbehaving or so inducing others to misbehave before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice.
from the category of capital offences, it would leave as a capital offence the act of
shamefully casting away his arms, ammunition and tools in the face of the enemy.
Nobody would cast away his tools, arms or ammunition unless he were a coward, and so really the Clause which the hon. Member has introduced would not accomplish his own wishes, even if it were passed. But in any case the Government cannot accept this Clause, and although the hon. Member has prophesied that the next Government—or a Government which he would support—would accept the Clause, I do not believe that any Government ever will.
The only point in his speech in which he introduced a certain amount of passion was towards the close. He said that if troops are in a bad state—and, as I said last year, the moment when this penalty really becomes operative and important is in a great crisis—it is because someone at the top has blundered, and that then orders are given to shoot a few privates to improve discipline. Really, that is not quite, a fair way of putting things. To begin with, it is not always fair to assume that because things are bad someone must have blundered. It is rather the modern attitude that if anything goes wrong in the world, somebody has to be blamed for it, and that if one side wins a battle the winning side are not to be praised but that the losing side are to be told that a scapegoat must be round. But that really does not affect the argument as to why this sanction of capital punishment as a deterrent—and we still believe firmly that it is a deterrent against cowardice—should remain in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) asked, "What is the difference between cowardice and fear?" I think that is a very easy thing to prove. Cowardice is an act; fear is a state of mind. I have seen men quivering with fear, green with fear but going on and behaving like heroes. Cowardice is something you actually do. That is the difference between the two.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt. I did not conceive that it was such an easy thing to answer; but in
order that we may be quite clear, let us suppose that it was out of fear caused by a great bombardment that a soldier runs. That is cowardice, according to the hon. Gentleman, but it is brought about by fear. Fear was the original cause.

Mr. COOPER: The definition of the right hon. Gentleman has made it even clearer that the cause is fear but the action is cowardice. You may say that hunger and stealing are the same things. Because a man is hungry he steals. That may be a justification for stealing or a palliation of the offence, but the two things are very different. One man because he is afraid may run away, but another man, more afraid, may go on. Cowardice and fear are not two states of mind; they are two words. I am surprised that this should puzzle the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Tottenham says that he has already accomplished a great deal, and I congratulate him upon the way in which he brings forward this proposal every year.

Mr. MORRISON: No, I did not say that. I was not referring to myself personally. I said we had.

Mr. COOPER: Well, this and other proposals have been brought forward, and the hon. Member told us quite fairly how much has been achieved already in the matter of the abolition of field punishment and the abolition of the capital punishment for certain offences, and he himself can see no reason why cowardice should remain as a capital offence any more than why field punishment should have remained as one of the penalties. But there is a great difference, a vital difference, which hon. Members opposite are apt to overlook. It has all to do with this very point about the difficulty of definition, on which they lay so much stress. They ask: "How can you have the extreme penalty for an offence which it is so difficult to define?" Because an offence is difficult to define that does not prove that it does not exist. In these days of psycho-analysis and one thing and another we begin to regard all offences as mere states of mind which ought to be treated by doctors rather than by lawyers. I suggest to the Committee that that is a very dangerous state of mind to get into. Because there is such a thing as kleptomania, that does not
prove that there is no such thing as stealing. Because there is such a thing as homicidal mania, that does not prove that there is no such thing as murder. Because there is such a thing as shell shock and breakdown of nerve, that does not prove that there is no such thing as cowardice. I believe that there is such a thing as cowardice; I believe it is a very horrible thing, and that it ought to be very severely punished, although I admit freely that it is very difficult to define. There are people who are cowards, as everybody knows who has any experience of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said that in the future wars would be fought by armies composed of the whole population. In those armies there will be every type of man; there will be the real criminal in those armies, and the man who, when he is brought into action, will think of nothing but saving his own skin; the man to whom imprisonment is no deterrent whatever, who regards imprisonment as ordinary people regard detention in the house with an attack of influenza; the man who does not feel the stigma of dishonour. For those people there must be some deterrent, and when the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) says it is entirely illogical to try to increase the courage of a body of men who are afraid of death in front of them by putting the fear of death behind them, I would like him to suggest any other way by which you can increase their courage. If these people really are men who would prefer imprisonment and dishonour to death, then we must substitute death as the only alternative.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The analogy drawn was that of the Australian Army, and will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point?

Mr. COOPER: I am not dealing with the Australian Army, and I do not intend to go into that question. The man who has submitted to a sentence of capital punishment usually goes back to prison awaiting confirmation of the sentence. The hon. Member who raised the question of the Australian Army said that their great quality was their extreme recklessness, but it is not correct to regard recklessness as being the same thing as courage or even as an important military virtue.
There is such a thing as cowardice, and that ought to be severely punished. There are innocent people who are in great danger of being convicted, and that is the whole basis upon which this question rests from the point of view of the Opposition. They say that there is a danger of people being convicted of cowardice who are simply suffering from shell-shock and matters of that kind, and the argument is that it is terrible that they should be even in danger of suffering the death penalty.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) by regarding capital punishment as an atrocious thing, but you cannot get rid of war by simply abolishing one atrocity. This is part of the hideous business of war, and if it were unjust—that is a word to which I would not subscribe or support—to execute people for this offence, it is only one of thousands of injustices which must necessarily take place in war. You are not going to abolish war by trying to improve it. I am not one of those who believe devotedly in capital punishment, and I am one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who supported the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) when he asked leave to introduce a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment. I do not say that my views in regard to capital punishment are exactly the same as those of the hon. and gallant Member, but I do think the question is ripe for consideration. I contend that there is a very much stronger case for the retention of capital punishment in the Army than there is for its retention as a punishment for murder. In this matter I think we are all apt to be carried away by sentiment, but we have to think of the interests of the community. Which is the greater offence and danger to the community—a man who has spread a panic amongst an important number of troops which may lead to the loss of a battle, or, possibly, to the loss of the war, which may do great injury to the Empire, or the man who commits a horrible murder and deprives one man of his life?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The question is whether the death penalty is a deterrent.

Mr. COOPER: It is a deterrent to the really bad type of criminal and it may be a deterrent even to the man whose nerves are failing or to the ordinary brave man who wishes to do his best and who enlisted from feelings of patriotism and afterwards finds that in the strain of battle his courage fails him. There is a time when such a man forgets and he is no longer master of himself. That man would far sooner go forward and die in battle than live under the stigma of cowardice, but at the moment so terrible is the fear of death that it may seem to that man that prison, dishonour and nothing else matters except to preserve his life. I do not know whether hon. Members will recollect the moving and passionate appeal made for life in the prison scene of "Measure for Measure," where Claudio says:
Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot;
and ends up:
The weariest and most loathed wordly life,
That age, ache, penury and imprisonment
Can lay on nature, is a paradise To what we fear of death.
Those appeals did not come from a bad man, but from a normal man who was under sentence of death and to whom at that moment nothing mattered except life.
I suggest to hon. Members that there man, but from a normal man who was are breaking down, and that, when in that terrible position those men have in front of them death with honour and behind them death with dishonour, this penalty may provide that extra stimulus, and instead of breaking down, it might be the means of men doing what they really desire to do. That is my serious opinion, and that is the opinion of those in high places in the Army. Those people who have the greatest knowledge of warfare, great officers of high standing who have devoted their lives to the study of war, are unanimously in favour of this Bill. As long as we have an Army, as long as there is danger of that Army being engaged in war, we must retain the extreme penalty for times of great crisis and great danger, as affording the sole
sanction for the preservation of military discipline.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The last part of the speech of the Financial Secretary shows that he has been defending the traditional position of the War Office, and it is the same defence which has always been set up when a more humanitarian outlook in the organisation of the Army has been urged. Members of this House protested year after year against flogging in the Army, and the same arguments about gallant officers being in favour of flogging to preserve discipline were put forward by the representatives of the War Office, but in the end the War Office gave way on this question. The same thing happened in regard to Field Punishment No. 1, and the same defence was set up in that respect. The real argument which has been put forward by the Financial Secretary is that the War Office is not yet prepared to advance with the times and accept the higher standards which we wish to press upon them.
Whether that is a good argument for voting against the Amendment is quite open to question. In the past it has been found necessary for public opinion to urge these reforms upon the War Office, and in cases where the War Office has been forced to go forward the result has been a success. Who would now venture to suggest the reimposition of flogging in the Army or the adoption of Field Punishment No. 1? If the Secretary of State for War was forming an army, as the Australians did during the War, nobody would think of introducing the death penalty for conduct arising from cowardice. It is quite an understandable point of view for our great Generals to say that they do not want to go forward, but I think we should be utterly wrong if we permitted military opinion, which may be excellent on technical matters, to decide what is really a question of standards of view.
The Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) said that this was not a question of justice, but the safety of all against the injustice of one. We heard something about villains exercising their villainy in a particularly dangerous way, but there is nothing in the Army Act which confines the death penalty to that offence. The Financial
Secretary tried to meet the case put by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) by saying that we are not dealing with a psychological state, but with action which results from psychology. That is tantamount to saying that you may shake at your knees, but you must not run with your legs. What is laid down in this Measure is that you must not behave in such a way as to show cowardice. Even if you substituted the word "fear" it would be exactly the same.
The Financial Secretary set up a defence on the ground that it was necessary to introduce a counter-terror. Once you have excluded the real villain who is trying to betray his country and who might deserve the death penalty, the argument of terror of terror becomes totally baseless. May I point out that in a large percentage of cases the death sentence is never carried out at all? That is a fact which is well known to those influenced by the counter-terror of the death sentence. There is no intellectual process going on in the mind of a man in those circumstances, and a good man faced with these difficulties is affected more by the knowledge that he may be court-martialled, and he has only a 11 per cent. chance of being shot. In these matters the whole standard of the public outlook is being raised. We are progressing, and certainly the type of man who would be likely to serve in a great war is the normal type of citizen. Consequently, you must adapt the standards of war to the standards that prevail amongst society at the time.

Mr. SNELL: Because of the character of the constituency which I have the privilege of representing in this House, I feel that I should like to say a word on this problem. It is not that I have the least authority to speak the mind of any soldier who lives or serves in my constituency, but I come into contact with many young soldiers, and have known them more or less intimately for nearly 40 years; and I know that they are very like any other aggregation of men. They do not differ in their qualities, in their physical and mental make-up, from other men, but the War Office attitude towards this problem is to assume that all men are alike—that, because they have certain physical qualities in common, therefore their mental make-up and their powers of
resistance are exactly the same. That appears to me to be the problem which this Committee ought to face. All people are not alike, and people who can bear one temptation quite easily are not necessarily people who can judge how much others have to bear. It may happen, and I think it frequently does happen, that the man who fails is the man who has made the bravest fight, and that those who have gained victories have gained them very easily indeed.
The War Office attitude on this question is, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) has remarked, the historic attitude of resisting new experiments. If the War Office could have had its way through the generations, we should have been back in the old period when men were brutally flogged for very small offences. Soldiers will, therefore, forgive us on this side of the House if we take their protest to-day as only a repetition of those historic protests which have not had very much weight. If this punishment were really a deterrent, there might be some argument for it, but if a man has fear come to him which overcomes everything else, it is positively certain that no possible punishment is going to steady him at that tme. I am not perfectly sure, but I believe I am right when I say that the real temptation for men to show what is called cowardice is not in the real crisis of battle, is not when men are going over the top, but it is rather when they are standing alone in the middle of the night, on sentry, perhaps, alone in the darkness, that this thing comes over them.
If we desire to encourage the highest type of people in our Army, we must make allowance for the humanity of these men. The War Office takes a mechanical judgment on this matter, and refuses to look at the humanity of the person concerned. If soldiers were selected for their mental qualities and their nervous strength, and if they were judged perfectly fitted for their task, there would be some argument if they failed in that task; but they are brought into the Army for all sorts of reasons, very frequently merely economic reasons, or, in time of war, they are conscripted without any sort of selection; and, because of that, some proportion of them fail. I cannot
speak for other Members, but I hope that in some things in life I am as brave as the rest; but I do not know what I should do in a certain crisis, under certain conditions, and, therefore, I do not like to take the responsibility of judging other people. This, however, I do know, that, in proportion as we have humanised this Army, so in proportion have we got that voluntary loyalty, that fervour, even, for the service of the country, that we so much admire. If the War Office attitude is right, if it encourages bravery, if it encourages loyalty, then they ought to inflict more punishments to cover a wider ground; but the exact opposite is true, namely, that, in proportion as we trust the men, as we understand what they are and how they mean to serve, in that proportion do we get the very best from them. I am quite sure that this Committee would be wise if it made this further moral venture, in order to give to these men relief from a stigma which in any case is futile.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot, of course, enter into the purely technical side of this proposition. All that I can say is that there were two armies fighting in the late War, the greatest war in history. There was, on the one hand, a professional army composed of a comparatively small number of men, the finest soldiers the world has yet produced. There was also another army, 85 per cent. of whom were ordinary citizens, the sons and the fathers of those who had never been soldiers. They took on the responsibility of fighting for what they were told was the object of the Great War—to free Europe from militarism, to prevent all the evils which we were told were part and parcel of the military system in other countries. A German officer would draw his sword and, for a mere technical offence, without any court-martial or trial, would chop off the fingers of a private in the German army. We were led to believe that all this spirit of militarism, this punishment for alleged or imagined offences, was going to be abolished when we won the Great War—shooting men at dawn, and what for? For cowardice. I remember people who took the first opportunity of getting away from London when the air raids were on—some of the biggest patriots we have in this country. They got as far away as they could from the
German aeroplanes, because they could afford it, and some of them were Members of the Government. They were not cowards; they were not shot at dawn. No, they were given degrees, they were made titled members of the nation. Some of them have come into this House who went to the War, but they took very good care that they never got near the front line. They got the D.S.O. and all sorts of honours, but, when it came to actual fighting, we never read their names in the firing line; there were no casualties among them; they got over it all right.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: The arms of 19 of them are displayed in this Chamber.

Mr. JONES: Yes, for those 19 I have every respect. I honour the people who did as they did, but I object to those who are always singing "God Save the King" through their teeth. Their patriotism means that they are going to preserve all the old traditions, and they take a man to be a coward because he does not accept their policy. I say that you have no right to call a man a coward merely because in a time of crisis his physical strength leaves him and he throws his tools away. I heard of one case in my own constituency. It was that of a navvy, who joined the Navvies' Battalion. He was not supposed to be a fighting man, but he went with his comrades to re-take a trench from which the ordinary soldiers had been driven. He found that his strength failed him—whether it was his physical or his mental strength I cannot say; I am not a psychologist. The consequence was that he was sent to penal servitude; he was a coward, although he went forward to take the place of a regular soldier.
We are told that we have to do these things in order to make men courageous. The greatest courage that I have is when I have a big lot of people in front of me who are against me. Mental courage does not depend upon mere condition; men have that naturally, whatever may happen. Moral courage is a gift; it cannot be made by gendarmeries. No general can make me a coward or a hero. He might try to make me a soldier, but he could not; all your militarism would not appeal to me. I took part, not as an individual, but as supporting the policy of the Allies, in the late War,
because I believed that it was a war to end war. If we are going to end war, we must end that which creates it, and militarism is the cause of war; it is the beginning and the end of it. The Government are opposing this simple proposition that men shall no longer be treated as though they were felons because they happen to have a lapse either physically or morally, and as though nothing else would meet their position except to shoot them.
I hope that the workers of this country will take notice of that. When the next war takes place, it will not be a war between professional armies, but between the citizens of the various countries concerned. I hope it will never happen, but, supposing that it does, what becomes of your military law? I will undertake to say that the authors of that kind of law will find themselves submerged by the indignation and the vehement protests of all who come under it, and, there-lore, I support this Amendment. It asks for only a small concession. Men are called cowards by people who have never been near the firing line, people who sometimes write in the newspapers about the moral courage of the man who has not got any, the type of people who stay at home and write leading articles inciting other people to go to fight, and who take very good care they never go themselves. We protest emphatically against that, and we ask the Government at least to give this concession, that cowardice, so called, shall no longer be placed as a crime against a man who has done his very best in times of difficulty.

Mr. TINKER: This question has caused me a considerable amount of anxiety. If a man deserts or falls back from the line, the feeling is that he ought to be shot, and in the heat of the moment there is no other feeling but that. I remember, during my period of service, the case of a man who deserted and fell back from the battle line. He was caught when he got down to the coast, and the commanding officer was keen on having him shot, but it turned out that he was a bit wrong in his head. I knew him intimately, and was aware that he was not normal, and I did what I could to bring home to the authorities the state of the man's mind. That man was tried by
court-martial, and it was only owing to the fact that he was not mentally level that he escaped punishment.
In the heat of battle the feeling is that in such a case the man should be shot, in order, as the hon. Gentleman said, to instil into others the need for going into the fighting line. Having given full consideration to this matter, I feel that that is not a right thing to do. If a man is imbued with the spirit of fighting for his country, there is no need to tell him that he will be shot if he does not go into the fighting line. I honestly believe that now, but I did not have it in mind when I was in the Army. If I thought any man, mentally equipped, had fallen back from the firing line I

should have been as keen on it as anyone else. Taking my own line, I am a coward in this way, that I would rather go forward and be shot than fall back for dishonour. That may be cowardice, but everyone has not the same outlook, and we have to consider it in that light. If we should ever be involved in war again I believe the spirit of patriotism would be quite sufficient to take men into the firing line without the thought that they will be shot if they retreat, I am going to support the Amendment and I think the effect of doing away with shooting for cowardice will be wholesome.

Question put, "That the Cause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 174.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[5.49 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lawis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shield, G. W.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)
Smillie, Robert


Blindell, James
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Petistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawson, John James
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clarke, A. B.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, r. (Houghton-lo-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Aeland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. C. W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Colfox, Major William Phillips


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals


Cope, Major Sir William
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hume, Sir G. H
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. O.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ellis, R. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Maelntyre, Ian
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. Q. P.


Flelden, E. B.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Storry-Deans, R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nair)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Gates, Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hamilton, Sir George
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.
Wolmer, Viscount


Haslam, Henry C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pilditch. Sir Philip
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ralne, Sir Walter
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.



Hills, Major John Waller
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Captain Wallace.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Mr. Montague.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I sum quite prepared to move the new Clause—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act)—in the names of the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and Darlington (Mr. Shepherd).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must move his own Clause—(Amendment of s. 138 of Army Act)—now, because that is the one I have called.

Mr. BENN: On a point of Order. We did not hear you call any Clause. You merely called Members. My hon. Friend was rising to move the former Clause about age.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. A name printed on the Order Paper takes precedence. I call the hon.
Member, which gives his particular Clause precedence at this moment. I therefore ask him to move it.

Mr. BENN: So that it will be in order to move the other Clause, but not in the precedence in which it appears on the Paper.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is so.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 138 of Army Act.)

In Section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to penal stoppages from the ordinary pay of soldiers), at the end of the proviso there shall be added—
and (d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant, penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted.—[Mr. Montague.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
6.0 p.m.
This Clause will mean that where a soldier is fined for any offence, if a part of his pay is deducted for dependants, that deduction shall not be accounted in the allocation of the fine. I really anticipate that the Financial Secretary will be willing to accept it. It seems to me so obviously reasonable and just. I only know the Army from my war time experience, which is not quite the same thing as the Army in peace time, but I know from that experience that a soldier is not worth much who does not at times run the risk of figuring in the crime sheet. Although I was four years in the Army and served as a private, a non-commissioned officer, and a commissioned officer, I had, at the end of it, a perfectly clean crime sheet. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is because you were not found out!"] The hon. Member is perfectly correct. There were at least three occasions on which I ought to have been shot. On one occasion, I was officer in charge of the fire picket, but for some unaccountable reason I forgot all about it, and went down town. This was after I had been to France, and had come back for special training. There was an alarm of fire while I was away. It was not a real fire, but it was put up by the commanding officer. A magazine was supposed to be on fire, and I was not present. But I had a very good sergeant. He took the fire picket out all right, got all the gear through, and carried on very well until the commanding officer turned up. I heard all this afterwards. Naturally—it was after night had fallen—the commanding officer wanted to know where the officer in charge was. The sergeant told him that I was on the other side of the building, and I can imagine the commanding officer running around the magazine several times trying to find me and then giving up in disgust and going back to the mess. That was one occasion on which I certainly deserved punishment, and did not get it. One or two other instances occurred, but, on the whole, I think, I did my duty as well as could reasonably be expected. I joined the Army at 38, and I suppose the impetuosity of youth had departed. I can imagine that if I had been younger I should not have had a clean crime sheet.
I left the Army without a single blot or blemish upon it. I know that some of the best of soldiers—and very often because they were the best of soldiers—did at times kick over the traces. They were fined and given punishment of one kind or another.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that in cases like that which really show the spirit and courage of the men, the wives, or children, or the aged parents should not be punished as well. That is what it means, and that is the position at the present moment. We move this Clause, because we think that it is one that will appeal to all reasonable instincts of the Members of this House and to the generous feelings of the Government. I ask the Financial Secretary 60 the War Office to prevent this discussion going any further by agreeing to the Clause to abolish the idea of making it possible, in the case of the soldier who has a penal fine imposed upon him, that the fine shall really fall upon those who depend upon him very largely, and who probably, because of the necessity of the allotment of pay, are in a very poor way of life.

Miss WILKINSON: I hope that the War Office will see their way to accept this Clause, because it concerns a matter of very serious moment to the men's wives and families and to their mothers. I know that the amount that a soldier can allot from his pay is very small, and that the amount may seem perfectly trivial to those of us who are sitting here, but it is quite a serious thing from the point of view of the poor woman who gets this little bit of money and to whom it is so very necessary. There is no reason whatever why the mother should suffer because a soldier has got drunk, or because he has done something else that contravenes the orders. It seems to me to be unfair that the soldier who has committed this crime should lot bear the whole burden of it. It does, after all, mean a double punishment to the man if he not only loses the amount of money, but if his family know all about his wrongdoing. I think that most men do not want their families to know what happens to them when they are away. They feel, probably, that it is a little hard luck if they have to write home and explain all about it to their wives. I should imagine that soldiers on the whole would very much prefer to lose the little extra money than have to write home to their
wives and explain why the amount of the allotment that is coming is less than before. From what I know of the soldiers of my acquaintance during the War they would, no doubt, be perfectly equal to producing a story that would stir a lady's gentle heart, at least the first time. It would be very much better, however, to allow the soldier to face up to his own punishment, and to have the whole of the money taken out of his portion of the pay rather than penalise a perfectly innocent wife and family. While the War Office will, no doubt, earn a certain amount of popularity among the Forces if they resist this Clause, nevertheless from the point of view of dependants, especially the women, it would be very much better if the amount of their allowance remained untouched and the soldier had to suffer deduction from his own portion of the pay.

Mr. COOPER: I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept this new Clause, and I am not sure whether the hon. Members who moved and seconded it are aware of the concession which this Government have made with regard to this particular subject. The Government have already arranged that men can transmit allowances not only to their wives but to their parents, or to any relations to whom they wish to allot a certain amount of their pay, and the Government undertake the whole expense of arranging for that transmission. It is a considerable expense which the State has undertaken. Beyond that, and subsequent to the Debate which took place three years ago in this House, we have arranged that in no case, however much a man may be in debt for an offence which he has committed, shall the allowance which he is paying to his parent or his wife, be reduced to a point beyond 50 per cent. of what it originally was. Therefore, in any case, the dependant retains, whatever crime the soldier may commit, half of the sum of the regular allowance to which he or she is entitled. Hon. Members opposite must remember that in the ordinary way a man's pay comes first as a source from which any such sums can be deducted. It is only when the sum is so large that it cannot be paid off by deduction from a man's pay within three months, leaving the minimum he must have for his own
personal use, that anything at all is deducted from the allowance.
The hon. Lady suggested that we were courting popularity with the troops by sticking to the law as it is. She seemed to think that they would be substantially the gainers under the existing system. That is not really the case. In the ordinary way, up to three months they bear the whole brunt. She suggested what an extremely useful deterrent this was, when she said a man would be far more likely to commit an offence if he was not afraid that it would be known at home and had not to report to his family. The same applies to the very engaging argument which the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) put forward. He said we wished to encourage a high spirit and a certain amount of dash in the Army. That is perfectly true, but we wish to keep that spirit in some sort of restraint. The instance which the hon. Member gave within his own military career is hardly affected by this Clause, as he was an officer at the time, but had he been a private soldier I am sure that he would have taken that risk with a far lighter heart had he felt in his generous and dashing way that all he was endangering was his own allowance. Had he, on the contrary, been aware that, should he get into serious trouble, his people and dependants might suffer, he would have thought twice, and probably remembered that it was his duty to stay at home. Both the speeches made in support of the Clause rather strengthen my view that the law, as it exists to-day, does provide a useful deterrent. No man in civil or in military life, I would remind the Committee, can hope to commit serious offences without bringing trouble not only upon himself, but upon all those who depend upon him. In the Army a man's dependants have got some safeguard. I am afraid that we cannot increase that safeguard.

Mr. LAWSON: It seems to me that the War Office have recognised that a very great hardship falls upon the parents. I think the fact that not more than 50 per cent. of the dependant's allowance can be affected is proof that they have recognised the hardship. The War Office, no doubt, think that they are swallowing a camel, whereas they are only straining at a gnat in refusing
to accept a Clause of this kind. As has been said, there are only a few cases affected by these stoppages. Every soldier does not make an allotment, while the cases of crime are remarkably few. When, however, the effect of the stoppages is felt by dependants, they are all very hard cases, as a matter of three or four shilling a week makes a very great deal of difference to their comfort. During the War, it was found that much trouble was brought upon parents and wives of men concerned, and there was so much indignation throughout the country that the War Office had to drop the regulation. The War Office ought to encourage the soldier to allot so much a week to his parents or dependants. I think that the hon. Gentleman will admit that this is very desirable. They ought to encourage the soldier to take that course, and be just to the parents and dependants. It appears to me that without in the least encouraging crime, or mitigating the punishment as far as particular offenders are concerned, the wisest, most reasonable and decent thing is for the War Office to see to it that the dependants get their full allotment.

Mr. KELLY: I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the War Office would have accepted this Clause. As things are at present, when a soldier is tried by court-martial or by any other authority, it is like placing his wife and family in the dock by his side. It may be a very fine thing for the War Office to hold that it is a good thing to put fear into the soldier by penalising his family. I suggest that it is unfair that the mother of a soldier who may be receiving an allotment upon which she has to depend should, because of some lapse on the part of her son, be deprived of part of that allotment, because the War Office think or say that they cannot get the money back during the next three months. If this were suggested in industry in civilian life at the present time, there would be such an outcry that no Government would dare stand against the proposals that we are putting forward. I am amazed that in this 20th century there is still an opinion held that soldiers must be dealt with in this way.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 170.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[6.16 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shield, G. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hudson, J. H. (Huddirsfield)
Shieds, Dr. Drummo'ld


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Taylor R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clarke, A. B.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomilnson, R. P.


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. hon Josiah


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben



Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.


Hardle, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Price, Major C. W. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ralne, Sir Walter


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. C. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir George
Rawson. Sir Cooper


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, Sir Gervale


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscos, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bullock, Captain M.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandon, Lord


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eills
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Christie, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, J. O.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Crookehank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meller, R. J.
Whiterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, John James


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Flelden, E. B.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newman, Sir R. H- S. D. L. (Exeter)



Foster, Sir Harry S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Fromantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act.)

The following proviso shall be added at the end of Section 76 of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):
Provided also that a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of 18 he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian."—[Mr. Shepherd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There are few hon. Members who would not feel great relief if it were made impossible, either by the terms of this new Clause or by any other means, to prevent the recruitment of boys under false pretences. There is no hon. Member who has not at some time or other been troubled with most distressing cases, where they have tried to get out of the Army boys who were under age and whose home circles were such that their parents had made requests for their redease. I, with other Members of Parliament, wish to say how very sympathetically we are always met by the Secretary of State for War in connection with these cases,
showing quite plainly that he recognises that there is something wrong with a system which allows the entrance of boys into the Army under false pretences. The right hon. Gentleman says that boys enter of their own free-will, but on reconsideration he must know that that is not so. It is generally a case of economic pressure, where the home circles are such that, if they are unemployed, they feel they are a drag upon their family. Therefore, they take one of the few roads out by joining the Army, either with or without the consent of their parents. To oppose this new Clause on the ground that these boys enter the Army of their own free-will is to act upon a false assumption.
I am much surprised that the Army itself does not look at this question properly. It cheapens the Army very much that recruits should be allowed to enter under false pretences. As long as the majority of the people of this country decide to have an Army, that Army should be made the most honourable occupation or profession possible. In no other walk of life would any entrant to any profession or employment be allowed to get in under false pretences. It would be a perfectly simple matter, although I know that there are objections to the suggestion, that every recruit for the Army should be required to produce a birth certificate. The right hon. Gentleman has considered this point, and I realise that there are some objections, but the trouble which inevitably arises through allowing recruits to enter without a birth certificate are far worse than would otherwise be the case.
This subject is somewhat of a hardy annual and is threadbare as far as argument is concerned; therefore, I will refer only to one further point, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned on the last occasion. He said that it was not right that we should release these boys easily; that we should make the penalty as severe as possible, up to a limit of £20, because of the cost of their training. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider that these boys, as a rule, cost far more than £20 to the Army, because of the great trouble they are in the Army and because of their immaturity, he would not use that argument again. In my own experience, I know
that the boys we had in my particular lot were a tremendous nuisance. They were enthusiastic on joining, but when it came to a long route march or a very arduous task, it was generally found that they had to come home on a wagon. One boy, whom I looked upon as a great friend of mine, and whose Army service lasted nine months, joined at the age of 16½ years, although he looked much older. Out of his nine months service he spent seven months in hospital in consequence of an overstrained heart. He was never lacking in any job that was to be done, and when any route march had to be undertaken he was always there and never gave in, with the result that he overstrained his heart. To argue that this is a question of expense and to talk about the great cost of training, is a very false assumption. The cost of keeping a boy in the Army is much greater than would be the case if he were the proper age and able to undertake the tasks which the Army demands.
The proposed new Clause asks that where a boy enlists before attaining the age of 18 he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian. I do not want to make it too easy. If the coy has enlisted with a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and of his own free will and not through any pressure of any sort, it is a different matter. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in the Debate last year that the vast majority of the cases were boys who enlisted because of great hardship at home, and, therefore, I think that when such cases can be proved there should be no difficulty at all about releasing them on the request of the parents.

Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member has said that the sympathy which the War Office and my right hon. Friend have always shown towards the hard cases brought to their notice proves that we are conscious that the law as it stands is not correct. I do not accept that argument for a moment. We think that the law as it stands is perfectly correct, as long as it is administered in the way which the hon. Member admits it is administered; that is with a broad mind and sympathetic outlook on such cases as are brought to our notice, He accuses the War Office of enlisting people under
false pretences. The false pretences are not ours; it is on the part of those who come to us and get enlisted under false pretences. It must be remembered that the class of boy for whom the hon. Member is demanding this relief is very small. Our recruiting agents have direct and strict instructions not to accept anybody unless he appears to be 18 years or over, and no one, except in the case of a well-developed and well-grown boy who looks more than 18 years of age, is likely to be accepted. If any boy is accepted and is under the age of 17, he can get release on the production of proof that he is under 17 years of age. Therefore, the only people that the Clause affects, the only people who may be suffering hardship by retention, are those boys who appear to be over 18 years of age when they actually join and who are over 17 years of age. That limits very much the number of boys with whom we are dealing.
The hon. Member admits that in those cases where it can be proved that real hardship is being inflicted on the boy or his family we are prepared to release him on compassionate grounds. I agree that many of these cases are brought to our notice; and many of them are released. A great many of them are not released. I go into them all myself, and I am always prepared to take the compassionate points of view. But in the case of the boy between 17 and 18 years of age, who wishes to be released, and who produces a certificate of employment from towns in places like South Wales, I feel it much easier to harden my heart because I feel confident—and

I am sure the hon. Member who knows a lot about the training of these boys will agree—that in 99 cases out of 100 a lad of 17 to 18 is far better off, from; his own point view, in the Army, where he is leading a healthy life, obtaining sufficient food, and a certain regular pay than he would be if thrown into the labour market in these distressed districts, or in any part of the country. Therefore, we cannot accept the new Clause. We do not believe that the majority of those who join the Army today would desire us to adopt the suggestion that we should insist on the production of a birth certificate. The hon. Member knows the reason why we have turned down that proposal time after time. There are many difficulties, it would entail delay, and in many cases hardship on the boy himself or his, parents. I can assure him that we shall always consider every application for relief on compassionate grounds with the greatest possible sympathy, but I cannot hold out any hope that we shall alter the law in the direction he suggests.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the hon. Member give me the latest figures: the number of recruits under 18, the number who have been released, and the number who have been refused?

Mr. COOPER: I have not the figures with me, but I will communicate them to the hon. Member.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 169.

Division No. 277.]
AYES.
[6.37 p.m.


Adamton, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Ammon, Charles George
Gardner, J. P.
Kelly, W. T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Garro-Jonts, Captain G. M.
Kennedy, T.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Broad, F. A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N.)


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lowth, T.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Charleton, H. C.
Groves, T.
MacLaren, Andrew


Clarke, A. B.
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.
Maxton, James


Connolly, M.
Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Day, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, George Harold


Dennison, R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Owen, Major G.


Palin, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.


Paling, W.
Smillie, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wellock, Wilfred


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.


Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shield, G. W.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tomlinson, R. P.



Shinwell, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—





Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gates, Percy
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Csnt'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Astor, Ma]. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsden, E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, J. R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christle, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thompson, Luke (Surderland)


Cope, Major Sir William
Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clemant
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. O.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain D.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Ellis, R. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fielden, E. B.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [25TH MARCH].

CLASS VII.

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.

"1. That a sum, not exceeding £181,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £184,690, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £360,950, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health and the Department of Health for Scotland).

4. That a sum, not exceeding £63,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."

Orders of the Day — BRIDGES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, although having only 16 Clauses, is of more importance than would appear on the surface. It is a Bill which in my opinion is urgently needed, and fortunately it is one which has no suspicion whatever of political bias. It is a Bill which on its merits I put before the House, and I hope that it will receive the support of all sections of the House. It seeks to facilitate the reconstruction and improvement of bridges which are not in the custody of a highway authority but are in the ownership of private individuals or of companies which are responsible for their maintenance. The Bill has already been through another place, and there it met
with no opposition at all, though certain small drafting Amendments or Amendments to meet individual hard cases were inserted. As far as I know this is an agreed Bill. Of course there may be hon. Members who will raise points and suggest Amendments, as they are entitled to do, but as far as the associations which are interested in bridges are concerned, I can assert that they are entirely in agreement with the proposals of the Bill.
I have consulted the Railway Companies' Association, the Canal Association, the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, the County Councils' Association and many other bodies. The Bill represents the negotiations carried on over a period of no less than three years. That may seem a long time for evolving so short a Bill, but, as hon. Members know, when many important associations have to be consulted and agreement reached between them, a long time is always taken before a final decision is reached. What is the position at the present moment? The owners of these weak bridges prohibit the use of the bridges to locomotives and motor vehicles over a certain weight. That they are perfectly entitled to do, because their only liability is to maintain a bridge at a strength that will carry the traffic which the bridge was originally designed to meet. Consequently there are many highways, first-class roads, in this country, which are forbidden to heavy traffic. Take the Midlands and the industrial area of Lancashire. There you have a network of canals and railways over which and up to which there are first-class roads on which vast sums have been spent, and yet you come upon a bridge which can carry only comparatively light traffic. Heavy traffic is absolutely held up, to the great loss and annoyance of the industrial community and to the detriment of the trade of the district. It is a disgrace to our road system in this country that such a state of things has been allowed to go on for so long a time.
Then take Cheshire and Staffordshire, where there are many bridges which will not carry heavy traffic. Access for heavy goods vehicles is almost denied to Liverpool and Birkenhead. In the Eastern counties also there is quite a number of bridges belonging to drainage boards, and these are in the same state, with
the result that the agricultural industry is hindered. I have received in the last two years a growing volume of protest from all sorts of interests, from transport associations, from chambers of commerce, from automobile associations and other organisations. The House will ask, why has nothing been done or why has so little been done? The reason is this: I cannot at the present moment, under the powers vested in me, make a grant from the Road Fund to a railway company or a canal company to reconstruct its bridges. Again, unless the canal or railway company gets express sanction it cannot divest itself of the responsibility resting upon it to reconstruct and maintain its bridges. Because of those two facts the number of bridges which it has been possible to reconstruct is ludicrously small, and quite inadequate to meet the situation.
Consequently this Bill has been brought in as a useful piece of machinery to enable the pace to be greatly accelerated and to do away with a blot on our road system. I shall read a resolution passed last year by the Joint Committee of both Houses which reported on the Bills, now Acts, that the railway companies brought in to enable them to carry out road transport operations. The Committee reported:
During the hearing of the evidence and arguments on these Bills, the question of the construction and maintenance of bridges has frequently come before the Committee, and they are impressed with its importance. A Bill dealing generally with the question of bridges has been read a First time in the House of Commons, and the Committe consider it advisable that some Measure on these lines should be presented and proceeded with at the earliest possible opportunity.
The provisions of this Bill are very short and simple. Clause 2 enables highway authorities and the owners of these weak bridges to enter into agreements whereby the bridges may be reconstructed, and it does away with the express statutory sanction now required in each case for this work to go through. Clause 3 enables the owner of one of the bridges, or a highway authority, to apply to the Minister for an order of reconstruction or for an order which would vest the maintenance of the roadway in some other hands than those in which it exists at present. Clause 6 provides that the
owner of the present bridge shall not contribute more than he is at present liable to contribute under the existing conditions.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman has jumped from Clause 3 to Clause 6.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am dealing with the main principles of the Bill. Clause 7 provides for arbitration in the event of disputes between the parties. The House will ask, quite legitimately, what part the Road Fund is going to take under this Bill. Up to now, owing to the inadequacy of the machinery and the state of the law, I have not been able to get rid of the money that I have allocated in the past for this purpose and for doing away with level crossings. I think I am right in saying that in the present financial year I shall have got rid of only about one quarter of the money that I have allocated to these purposes, owing to the difficulties that I have outlined. Next year, in the next financial year, I hope to allocate a very considerably larger sum for these particular purposes.

Mr. T. SHAW: Next year?

7.0 p.m.

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, the year beginning 1st April. Anyhow, these allocations will be made before the General Election. I shall allocate a considerably larger sum. If the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill and it passes into law, I hope and trust that the pace will be very much accelerated and that considerable progress will be made. The practice two or three years ago was to give assistance from the Road Fund for reconstruction of bridges on the same basis as other grants; that is to say, in the case of first-class roads we gave 50 per cent. and in the case of second-class roads 33⅓ per cent. or 25 per cent., or whatever the allocation was for the year. Lately, in the last 18 months, in my earnest desire to get something done I have given 60 per cent. and even up to 75 per cent. according to the nature of the scheme. The policy will be, if at all possible, for the Road Fund to find three-quarters of the cost of this reconstruction to the highway authority and thereby to induce and bring pressure upon the local authorities to do away with this blot on our transport system.

Mr. CRAWFURD: What about Clause 9?

Colonel ASHLEY: Clause 9 says that I may hold inquiries. Of course, I may need to hold inquiries in order to inform myself.

Mr. CRAWFURD: On your own initiative?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes.

Mr. BENN: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say a word about the procedure under Clause 10?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is the usual procedure in this House, namely, that the Minister may make Rules preliminary to the making of Orders, and these Rules are laid before the House for 21 days.

Mr. BENN: Are they subject to a confirmatory resolution?

Colonel ASHLEY: No. They lie on the Table of the House, and, unless reversed by an Address by either House of Parliament, they are automatically considered to be effective. If the hon. Member is ever in a position of responsibility, he will realise that, if we were to proceed on the lines he suggests by his question, we would have no time for anything else. I have now briefly explained the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. It has nothing to do with politics, but it is intended to do away with the restrictions to traffic over these bridges which exists at the present moment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The House will generally agree with one sentiment uttered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, namely, that this Bill is very much overdue, or rather that the solution of the problem with which it deals is very much overdue. When we discuss bridges at this hour of the lifetime of the present Government, I cannot help thinking of the famous bridge at Venice, the Bridge of Sighs, which leads from the palace to the prison, and which is the only bridge in which this Government will be interested for a long time to come. The object of the Bill, as avowed by the Minister, is to make conditions on the roads much easier for our general motor traffic. The growing difficulties experienced—in the last 10 years especially—by our commercial
traffic are well known. We in the trade with which I am familiar have been served with injunctions and all kinds of notices to prevent us from using by our commercial transport various bridges right throughout the country. In consequence, the whole range of commercial motor transport has had to be diverted again and again to a mileage sometimes double and sometimes treble what would be necessary if there were efficient bridges on the main roads of the country. The ultimate cost of that additional ton mileage is of course a very severe burden on the industries affected. I have made calculations with the business with which I am familiar and as they have about a thousand heavy motor vehicles, the loss owing to the extra ton mileage that has to be run is very considerable indeed.
The handicaps to commercial road users are well known, and I agree with the Minister that the fact that the remedy for them has been so long delayed is a disgrace. There is not only the question of the extra ton mileage to commercial users, but there is the extraordinary danger to life of many of the bridges. Some of the approaches to the bridges over the main roads are a continual menace to public safety and ought to have been removed long ago. While one agrees as to the great desirability of the object of this Bill, I confess I cannot see any rapid transformation coming about in our road system by the operation of this Measure in respect to bridges over railways and canals. There will be some change, but, if the need is as great as has been indicated by the Minister, both in regard to the commercial road users and to the public safety of the users of the roads in general, then surely it would have been possible to have devised a Measure which would have brought about far more rapid results than are likely to arise from this Bill.
The Minister has not given us anything like a detailed examination of the clauses of the Bill. Clause 2, for instance, makes it possible for certain sections of railway and canal and other Acts to be abrogated and permits these companies to enter into agreements with highway authorities. How rapidly are such agreements going to be made? It is a perfectly voluntary arrangement. Neither the highway
authority nor the railway or canal company is compelled to enter into an agreement. They go on year after year, and there may be no change at all in the position so far as these bridges are concerned. There is nothing compulsory about that clause. We on these benches feel that there is nothing in that clause which is likely to lead to what we desire, namely, that the bridges over the railways, canals, and tideways should be as much publicly-owned as the rest of the roads of the country. There is nothing in Clause 2 which will make it a rule that there shall be public ownership of that portion of the roads which is carried over bridges. I submit that to leave to voluntary agreement between these various authorities the main burden of removing the difficulties caused by these bridges is not getting a move on at the rate at which we ought to advance. There are powers in Clause 3 by which the Minister by Order-in-Council may take certain action. The Minister was very anxious not to say too much about Clause 4. If you take Clause 4 in conjunction with Clause 3, you will find that in reality the powers of the Minister are very much watered down. Clause 4 makes it possible for any railway company, canal company, or dock company to be exempted from Orders made by the Minister unless they agree to the proposals which are in the Order and if they carry out the work themselves.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: If they do the work themselves, they are exempt.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Taking Clause 3 and Clause 4 together, there is nothing on the surface of the Bill which gives final power to the Minister of Transport to say to a railway or canal company: "You have got to do this." If that is not so, then the Minister has been strangely wanting in his explanation to the House. Anybody reading the Bill at first sight would have great difficulty in understanding that he has such powers. As that is an important part of the Minister's scheme, surely the Minister should have treated the House to a more detailed and more intelligent explanation of his own Bill. If one looks at Sub-section (7) of Clause 3 my case with regard to the slowness with which this Bill will operate is maintained. Under that sub-section:
The Minister may postpone the date of the operation of an order made under this section in any case where it appears to him that, owing to the number or nature of the orders and applications affecting the same highway authority or bridges belonging to the same owner, the making of an order which would be immediately operative would work hardship to the authority or to the owner.
It will be very easy, indeed, if one is dealing with a large number of bridges owned by a railway company or a canal company, to say: "We must agree to delay. We must give them a right to postpone these works for an indefinite period, because they have so many of these bridges under their control to tackle." In consequence, instead of getting a real move on in this very great and complex problem and dealing with some of the most dangerous situations in the country, you may have quite unnecessary delay. That delay will be justified mainly on the ground of financial hardship, either financial hardship to the railway or canal authority, or to the higher authority. We are therefore in the position of dealing with this grave and important problem in such a way that the work can be held up indefinitely because of financial hardship. Yet the Government have taken £26,000,000 from the Road Fund in order to relieve taxation in other directions. If they had not done so, they could at the present time be giving very much larger grants from the Read Fund which has been accumulated from the users of the road for the specific purpose of maintaining, improving, and developing the road system of the country. They could now be taking from that Fund and giving to this important object sufficient money to enable the work to be put in hand much more rapidly. I understood from the Minister that he had consulted various people about the Bill and that he intended the House to understand that the Bill was entirely an agreed Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I consulted all the associations, the Railway Companies Association, the Canal Association, the Harbour and Docks Association, and the County Councils Association, and a number of others. All those associations agreed with the Bill as it stands. I cannot guarantee that some individual local authority or some Member of this House may not disagree. To the best of my
knowledge, I have consulted all the associations representing the various interests, and they have all agreed to it.

Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that the Birmingham Co-operative Society are strongly in favour of the Bill?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not say that they are not anxious that something should be done for a solution of the problem, but I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that the Birmingham Co-operative Society are in favour of the detailed particulars of the Bill.

Mr. HANNON: I did not say the detailed particulars, but are they not in favour of the Bill generally?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As I have already indicated, we are in favour of taking steps for a solution of the problem. On this point, I have a communication from a prominent member of the Municipal Corporations' Association from which I understand that they are not at all satisfied that the amount of Government grant which is to be available in support of the scheme, would meet their wishes. I understand, further, that they are going to ask the Minister to receive a deputation in order that they may submit their case as to the finances of the Bill, and I should like to know if the Minister is going to receive that deputation and discuss those details with them.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not heard of any communication from this body, but naturally, I shall be very pleased to see them if they desire it. The only communication of any sort which I have received from a local body is one from the Middlesex County Council.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then, obviously, the Municipal Corporations' Association is not one of the bodies which has been consulted. It is a very important body, which will have to deal with a large amount of highway work inside the area of boroughs and county boroughs.

Colonel ASHLEY: They were not actually consulted, but there were negotiations, and they made no comments adverse or otherwise.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then I understand that if they have any criticism to offer
of the finances of the Bill, the Minister would be prepared to meet them and to consider their representations?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Sympathetically?

Colonel ASHLEY: I must wait and see what they ask.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There is another point. If, inside county boroughs and boroughs, there is going to be a widening and improvement of bridge communications, then you must have the powers and the finance to acquire property and to deal with street widening. I am not clear from what the Minister has said as to the exact position in regard to finance. He mentioned in regard to second-class roads a figure of 33 per cent. and also, I think, indicated that in regard to certain of this bridge work he was prepared to give as high as 60 per cent. or even 75 per cent. But a local authority will have to deal, not only with the bridge itself, but with the approaches to the bridge, and they will need to be assured that they are going to get from the Road Fund assistance for the whole of the work and not merely for the work of dealing with the actual bridge itself. For these reasons, I feel that the Minister has been somewhat lax, and has not given us a sufficiently detailed explanation of the Bill. I feel, too, that the Government have not been quite respectful to the House of Commons in the way in which they have presented this Bill. Nearly half of it is bracketed and underlined as being outside the scope of the House of Commons. It has been introduced in another place almost at the end of the Session. We are being asked to pass it in a very short time, and, although the Minister did not say so in actual words, he hinted that he hoped there would not be much discussion on it.

Colonel ASHLEY: A Minister naturally hopes, when he brings in a Bill, that he will get it through without much discussion.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should not have thought that such a hope would come from a Minister who has proved himself so able in debate in such bodies as the Anti-Socialist Union. I should have thought that a Minister, with that kind of experience, would be only too willing
to engage in debate any time and anywhere. I feel that the Bill is of such importance that it requires a thorough examination and that, in view of the financial commitments of local authorities under the Bill, we ought to have had a much wider explanation. Indeed we ought to have had a White Paper dealing with the whole scheme contemplated by the Government, and we ought to have sufficient time for the adequate discussion of these proposals in Committee. Finally, while it may not be possible in this Parliament, because of its composition and the general circumstances, to achieve what we would desire, I think it most undesirable that the country should be committed to a large expenditure from public funds and that we should at the same time be in the position of retaining private ownership and control of these very important links in our national road system. If we are to be committed to this large public expenditure, we ought to have the ownership, as well as the responsibility of maintenance of the bridges which form so important a part of our internal communications. The Minister ought to understand that whilst we may not have very prolonged Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, he may expect it to be examined carefully and thoroughly when it goes to Committee.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Nine-tenths of the speech of the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was directed towards proving the urgency of this matter and the remaining tenth of his speech directly contradicted that point of view. I agree with the hon. Member as to the nine-tenths. My reason for intervening in this Debate is that I was a member of the Joint Committee which sat for 37 days considering this matter, and during that inquiry we were constantly hearing statements by local authorities in all parts of the country emphasising the urgency of the need that provision should be made by Parliament to deal with what was stopping the development of motor traffic on our roads, namely, the impossibility under the existing law, of dealing with the widening, strengthening and maintenance of bridges. It was owing to the constant reiteration of this point about urgency that we made a special request
that the matter should be taken up at once by the Government and a Bill on these lines brought before Parliament.
I assure the House that it is a most urgent matter and that great road widening schemes are being held up all over the country because there is no machinery in the existing law by which a railway company which owns a bridge can make a bargain with a local authority. The local authority which wishes a bridge to be widened and which will get the advantage of the widening of the bridge, cannot contribute towards doing so, and cannot make any arrangement. It is not only a matter affecting commercial traffic; it is a matter affecting passenger traffic as well. In my own constituency passengers going from Tun-bridge Wells, when they reach a certain bridge over the Southern Railway, have to get off the omnibus in which they are travelling, and walk across the bridge and get into an omnibus on the other side. That is an intolerable state of things. It is not a question of public ownership, but it is a question of an urgent need for the development of our traffic. I took some little part in bringing this Measure as far as it is to-day. It had to be introduced in another place because at the time of its introduction it was anticipated that the Debates here on the Local Government Bill would have taken very much more time than they did.
This Bill, as far as I can see, meets the necessities of the case, and provides machinery which will enable the necessary improvements to be carried out. In Clause 3 there is power, in spite of existing Acts, for highway authorities and bridge owners to make bargains by arrangement for the widening and strengthening of bridges. Clause 3 is realty the most operative part of the Measure, and it is limited to cases where the owner of a bridge or a highway authority considers that a bridge is, or may be, by reason of its construction, position or state of repair, dangerous or unsuitable for the requirements of road traffic as then existing. Wherever such a case arises, and wherever that owner or highway authority desires to have the bridge improved, they can go to the Minister, and the Minister having made inquiry—and in most cases it will
probably be done by agreement between the parties except on one or two points which may be left to the Minister to settle—may make an order, and that order has to be carried out. Clause 4 is not as the hon. Member for Hills-borough represented. Clause 4 only provides that where a railway company owning a bridge desires to continue the ownership of the bridge in order to perform its statutory duties, it shall do so, but the order of the Minister has to be carried out. Reading these provisions, I cannot see any machinery necessary for the purpose which has not been provided. The Minister will also have power to facilitate these works by making grants under the Road Fund. It is a beneficent Measure and as it is practically an agreed Measure, I hope the House will have no hesitation in giving it a Second Reading.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in the figure of speech with which he began his remarks. If, indeed, the hon. Member intends to send the Minister and his friends to gaol, then the Government of which the hon. Member, no doubt, hopes to be a member, will evidently be even more drastic than we expected. Nor am I able to understand why the hon. Member was so reluctant to give the figures of losses sustained by the co-operative societies in regard to the sending round of goods. I understood the hon. Member in another connection was an advocate of publicity of accounts in business, and this would have been a very valuable figure. As the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has said, what is the relevance of bringing in questions of public ownership into this Bill? It seems like dragging King Charles head into a company that is sick of the subject of decapitation. The real criticism of this Bill is to be seen in Subsection (2) of Clause 3, where it says that—

It being half after Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. BENN: I suppose the Minister of Transport is in charge of this Bill?

Colonel ASHLEY: No.

Mr. BENN: Then who is? I cannot conceive that nobody is prepared to answer questions on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving the adjournment of the Debate, but I have some simple questions to put, and if there is no one capable of answering them on behalf of the Government, I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, to accept a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a private Bill; it would not be usual for a Minister to be on the Government Bench to reply to questions upon it.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I am ready, on behalf of the promoters, to answer any questions on the Bill.

Mr. BENN: I understand that, but I think it is customary for some Government Department to interest themselves in these private Bills.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Committees is officially in charge and moves the Second Reading of private Bills. That is the usual course, and it is generally supposed that any hon. Members who may wish to raise questions will state them and they may be answered in due course, but in any case there may be no obligation upon the Government to answer them.

Mr. BENN: I will leave that, but when important principles are involved in any private Bill, not only has the Chairman of Ways and Means moved its Second Reading, as being the officer in charge, but Members of the Ministry have been present to give the Government's view. I can recollect very many such cases,
This is a Bill for permitting the London County Council to raise capital sums for the extension of their tram-ways, and before we consent to it I think we ought to know more about what is likely to happen to the tramways under the Council's other Bill. The question I want to address to the Minister of Transport is this: As far as one can judge, the progress of the Traffic Bill cannot result in its passage through both Houses before the Dissolution. Now what is the intention of the Government in regard to that matter? If the Traffic Bill does not pass, then I see no objection to this private Bill which gives the London County Council power to raise more money to extend their tramways. If, on the other hand, the Traffic Bill is to pass, there may be more matter for Debate; and, therefore, I ask the Government specifically what are their intentions in regard to the London Traffic Bill, in view of the fact—

Mr. TASKER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to drag in the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was waiting for the hon. Member to develop his argument, but he must remember that the London County Council already have powers, granted by an Act of this House, for the purpose of tramways, and this Bill is confined to giving them powers to borrow money. The principle has already been passed by the House.

Mr. BENN: I was not proposing to challenge the right of the London County Council at all. I was only raising the question of whether it is expedient to permit them to raise additional sums under the powers they already possess, in view of the present situation. It appears to be the case that the Traffic Bill is dead, and there seems to be no reasonable prospect that it can be passed before the Dissolution. If that be the case, there is no objection to this particular Bill, but if that be not the case, and if an attempt be made to keep that Traffic Bill alive over the Dissolution, we may have something to say about further money being raised by the County Council. Is it the intention of the Government to take any steps to carry this Traffic Bill over the Dissolution of Parliament?

Mr. GILLETT: I want to develop the suggestion brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Benn), by asking a few definite questions in connection with some of the sums of money that appear in the Schedule to this Bill. One of the largest items that appears under capital expenditure is to be found on page 6 of the Bill, item 5, where there is a sum of £675,000 that is to be expended under the Tramways Act on the
construction, reconstruction, and equipment of tramways, provision of buildings, power-stations, machinery and rolling stock, and other purposes.
In view of the proposed changes that the London County Council are anxious to see take place in London's traffic, as represented by the Bill which they are promoting in this House for the amalgamation of their system with other traffic services in London, I should like to know how much of this £675,000 is to be employed on new construction of tramways. Are they going to put down any short lengths of tramway lines?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising a question of administration on the part of the London County Council, and I do not think it would be proper to discuss that on the Floor of this House.

Mr. GILLETT: This Bill asks me, as a Member of this House, to sanction the expenditure of £675,000 on tramways. How am I to give an opinion if I cannot have any information? I may be willing to vote this money if it is for the renewal of the present track, but, on the other hand—

Mr. SPEAKER: The London County Council have already had powers granted to them to construct tramways, by various Acts passed by this House This Bill is only asking power to raise money for something which we have a ready allowed the County Council to do.

Mr. GILLETT: But the power is no good to them without the money, and if the House refuses to grant the money, what use is it to the County Council to have this power, and how can we come to a conclusion as to whether the money is to be granted?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be much use granting the powers and withholding the means of raising the money.

Mr. GILLETT: Then why do we have this Bill before us at all?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member likes to vote against it, he can do so.

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps I may follow my line of argument in another way, because the proposal in this Bill is to raise some £675,000, which is capital expenditure, to be used for the purposes of the tramways under the powers which have been granted to the council. I want to ask whether this money, when it has been expended under the new provisions of the Bill, will rank as capital under that scheme, and, if so, what is likely to be the return of interest that they are going to receive upon this money. I suppose I should be out of order in discussing whether it is advisable that the London County Council should go to the money market to raise money at the present time, in view of the fact that the money market is not in a very good condition for anybody to float a loan, and that, therefore, it might be wiser for the council to postpone the raising of this money for a little while. If the Traffic Bill goes through and the tramway service is passed over to the Combine, I understand that all the capital expenditure will rank for a certain dividend or rate of interest, and I should like to know from those who represent the county council whether they have any idea as to what return they will receive on the capital for power to borrow which they are now asking this House, and whether they are satisfied that the return will be larger from the new Combine than they would be charged in the London money market in order to raise their money.
Under the County Council Bill, the new traffic Combine are themselves to be given the power of raising additional capital upon the resources of the London County Council, as I understand it, and if so, is it advisable for the council to be raising this money? We are being asked in this Bill to sanction the raising of a sum of about £8,000,000. What is to be the position of the London County Council as a borrowing factor when they merge their trams into the
traffic Combine? As far as I can understand it, they are giving the Combine certain powers of raising money on the rateable value of the London County Council, and I should like to have that point explained, because it might be wiser for the council to confine their borrowing powers simply to the Bill that they have before a Committee of the House of Commons, and not now to be launching into too large a scheme.
Another question that I would like to ask is whether the Ministerial veto in any way applies to the question of the capital expenditure of the London County Council. Certain powers are given to the Minister by which proposals have to have his sanction, and I should like to know how far the Minister will have a say before the Bill giving this power for raising money on the rates of London by the Combine is going to be finally passed. I would like some information on another Clause which also deals with the London County Council Tramways. A sum of £119,000 is to be expended in the acquisition of property, the execution of work and the widening of routes for the tramway services. Would it not have been better to have postponed that expenditure in order that that charge might be borne by the Combine, whose omnibuses will also benefit by this widening. Before we pass this Measure we ought to have some definite statement by one of the representatives of the London County Council on the exceedingly important matter of the effect that the powers given to the Combine of raising money upon the rates of London is going to have upon the Committee's powers of raising money also, and how far it is likely that they will have to pay a higher price for this money because of the fact that the money market will never know how soon another large body, of which they are a part, will also come and ask for fresh funds in order to extend the traffic facilities of London.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I have listened with a considerable amount of admiration to the very ingenious attempt of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) to get this Debate on to its legs. I do not know where he gets the suggestion that the Combine will have the power to raise money on the rateable value of London.

Mr. GILLETT: I got it from the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill, Clause 6, Paragraph (b A), which says:
the development or extension of the associated undertakings or any of them or any parts thereof and the making of financial provision for facilitating the raising of additional capital or moneys for those purposes,

Sir G. HUME: That is not on the rateable value of London, but on the total result of the co-operative work of the various undertakings, on the pooling of their work. Further powers would have to be acquired if such a proposal were to be effective. At least half the amount for which the London County Council are asking in this Bill in respect of tramways is for the enlargement of the subway from the Embankment to Southampton Row. Another large amount is for street widenings and extensions. All these works will he carried out under the assumption that the ownership of the tramways, even if these Bills go through, will remain with the London County Council, who will also be responsible for their maintenance, extension and improvement. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest pending the fate of certain Bills which are now upstairs that the London County Council should cease to develop this undertaking. If the House refused to pass this Bill, it would mean that we should have to hold up the improvements and extensions which are necessary on the tramway undertakings. That is not the intention of the London County Council, and I hope that the House will not do anything to prevent the Council's property being developed and maintained to the utmost extent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means whether it is his intention to put on the Paper a Motion before the end of this Parliament to carry the Traffic Bills over to the next Parliament?

Sir D. HERBERT: I do not think that, this is a question that I can possibly answer at the present moment. I do not think that it arises on this Bill and that it would he proper for me to answer it on this occasion.

Captain FRASER: Under Section 17 of the Schedule is an item of £5,000 which has been allocated for the expenditure
of certain institutions for the blind. That may or may not be a very desirable expenditure, but I want to be assured that it is not made at the expense of another reform in which London is very behindhand. In four or five provincial towns, such as Birkenhead, Hull, Gloucester and Sheffield, payments are made for unemployed blind persons on a scale which is higher than that which is in operation in London. I believe that the matter is under the consideration of the London County Council, and I should like to feel assured that they contemplate soon raising the London scale until it is at least comparable to that of these towns.

Sir C. COBB: Only recently we had this matter brought to our notice by the Central Committee for the Care of the Blind of London. We have on the County Council a special committee for the welfare of the blind, and the matter is before that committee now. I understand that we shall shortly have the whole matter brought before the Council, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that it will be considered; I think that I may assure him that it will be considered favourably. I feel that we ought not to give less to these particular people than is given by the great cities of the country.

Orders of the Day — BRIDGES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. CRAWFURD: When the Debate was interrupted I was saying that the central criticism of the Bill is to be found in Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was introducing this Bill I asked him, with reference to Clause 9, which contains provision for the holding of inquiries, whether these inquiries would be held on his initiative, and he assured me that they would be. It is useless to hold an inquiry unless action is to follow. Clause 3, Sub-section (2), says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister on any such application may make an order.
The words "any such application" refer to Sub-section (1), and that is the centre of my complaint against the Bill. Unless the owner or the authorities make a move, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is powerless. The gravity of the need which this Bill seeks to meet can hardly be over-estimated. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned what he called the industrial Midlands, and I believe that in an area there of 30 miles by 40 miles there are two or three thousand bridges which cannot bear the weight of modern traffic. That alone shows that this subject ought to have been dealt with years ago. The Bill is not drastic enough. I do not care anything about the question of public ownership; the point is that we must enable people and goods to get from one place to another more cheaply and quickly than they can now, and we know how these bridges interrupt the traffic. At Liverpool, where enormous improvements have been effected in town planning, a bridge of this type is holding up the passage of heavy traffic. That is happening all over the country, and I reinforce what the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said about what might have been done if the Road Fund had been applied to its proper purpose. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned a sum of £250,000 which he allocated for this purpose this year. He could spend only a quarter of that sum, and I have not the least doubt that millions could probably be spent on this purpose. The spending of that money would not only employ men, but leave behind an asset to the country which would help the transport problem in many ways. We all know cases where a bad, insufficient, obsolete bridge, which is not powerful enough, can hold up the traffic on miles of roads, and it is no good starting on improvements to the roads until there are adequate bridges. My Friends will not offer any opposition to the passage of this Bill, but I hope that we shall make some attempt to make it more drastic.

Mr. MacLAREN: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that this Bill ought to have been prefaced by a White Paper to give the House and the public some idea of what is involved in it. Will the passage of this Bill do anything to compel owners of private bridges to contribute more for the reconstruction of these bridges?

Colonel ASHLEY: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacLAREN: In that case, it would appear that the passage of this Bill is nothing short of a ramp.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why?

Mr. MacLAREN: If this Bill does not compel these people to pay more, the local authorities and the Road Fund combined will have to contribute thousands as against their hundreds.

Colonel ASHLEY: It does not benefit the private owner, but it benefits the public and the public should pay.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am sure that the Minister does not think that I am so simple as that, nor do I think that he is so naive as he appears to be. Within 25 miles of Charing Cross are 400 bridges which have bottle necks on the great roads which are being developed. When we were going in for the grandiose scheme of trunk roads and arterial development, the bridges should have been the first consideration, but we have now come to the empasse that the trunk roads and arterial roads have bottle necks because of these narrow bridges. I can see my dear old friend the landowner watching you build these great roads; as the owner of a private bridge, he would know that his compensation was secure, and that in the making of arterial roads the value of his assets would go up in proportion to the country's necessity. To return to the 400 bridges within 25 miles of Charing Cross: I am asking the Minister what will be the net cost to the local authorities, and what will be the amount of the contributions from the Road Fund for the reconstruction of these bridges? These people are, by law, obliged to contribute only £750. The net cost for the reconstruction of the Regent's Canal bridge was £11,000, and the company only contributed £750. That is a typical illustration of what will go on all over the country, unless provision is made to compel private owners to contribute much more. I think it would be quite a good idea to call upon the owners to capitalise what the upkeep of the bridge would be year by year; and, to put it at a conservative estimate, that would be £50. You would then find that the sum for each bridge would work out at something like £2,000. With 400
bridges there is going to be a capital cost of £800,000. Who is going to pay? How much are private owners going to contribute towards this sum? These are all questions which arise in one's mind to which one finds no answer in the Bill.
Clause 4 is a very contentious one. It has already been discussed, and one could not follow up what has been said without going into meticulous details more suited to a Committee stage speech. But there is one passage in the Bill which I should like the Minister to explain. It occurs at the top of page 4, in Clause 3 (2, d). In that paragraph the Minister provides:
for the transfer to and vesting in a highway authority of the property in the bridge or road carried thereby or the approaches thereto, and of all rights and obligations other than any right to take tolls.
I would like the Minister to tell us exactly what that means. We have in mind the case of a bridge taken over in the county of Kent. A private company charged tolls for the use of that bridge. The bridge was reconstructed and, after public funds had been used to reconstruct it, the private company still continued to exact toils; and after having received enhanced tolls after the reconstruction of the bridge, the company sold the tolls back to the local authority, I wish to know whether this innocent-looking little passage is inserted to encourage this little piece of—shall I call it business—on the part of toll owners. Does this mean that the tolls are exempt and are still to be retained in the hands of the private owners; or are they a saleable commodity after the bridge has been constructed to the profit of the previous owner?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer is that we do not think it is right to deal with tolls in this Bill. If the hon. Member looks at Sub-section (6) he will see that the Minister:
shall not, on the application of the owner of a bridge to which any right to take tolls is attached, make an order tinder this section with respect to that bridge without the consent of the highway authority or authorities.
That is to prevent anything being done which would in any way increase the value of the tolls. We regard the highway authorities as the guardians of the public rights.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply, but, still, it will allow the exaction of tolls to remain.

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but not without the consent of the highway authority—[Interruption.]

Mr. MacLAREN: Perhaps the Minister of Transport will lay down his task with greater relief than any other Minister, and hand over all the obligations and difficulties under this Bill to the Labour Minister who will take his place. Another thing to which I wish to call attention is to be found in Clause 6. On page 7 it says:
Where the bridge is a bridge crossing a railway or canal of a railway company….any additional expense incurred by the owners of that railway, canal, lock, passage or work, by reason or any alteration thereof, due to the provisions of the order, not being provisions applied for by the owners for the improvement of their undertaking, shall be defrayed by one or more of the highway authorities.
I openly challenge any owner of a private bridge to say that he will not be in pocket after the improvement has been carried out?

Colonel ASHLEY: The advantage is to the public. It does not help a railway company or a canal company if a bridge over their property is made better. The people who will benefit are the public.

Mr. BENN: Why did you make, them pay in the first instance?

Colonel ASHLEY: You had better ask the people who passed the Act in 1840.

Mr. MacLAREN: The reading of this Clause means, if it means anything at all, that benefits are bound to accrue to somebody by virtue of the reconstructed bridge, and the owners have to be compensated because they did not ask for those improvements to be made. As I have said, I do not want to be meticulous or make a Committee speech on the Bill, but I do ask that the questions I have put may be dealt with by the Minister because I am not speaking as one who looked into this matter only yesterday nor, indeed, am I speaking entirely on my own responsibility. I have discussed this matter with our local authorities in Staffordshire, and in Staffordshire, as it will be known, we are bottlenecked on
many of our roads by inefficient bridges. In speaking to our surveyors and other local authority officials, and talking to men who have made it their business to look after the roads, I have found that they are frankly suspicious of this Bill. They are just as suspicious as I am—though for another reason. As the House well knows, I am always watching the vast expenditure of public money on the making of roads and the reconstruction of bridges, all of which goes to enhance the value of land. If I had my way, I would know where to get the money to cover the cost of reconstruction, without going to the Road Fund or the local authorities. I would make the betterment value which arises from these improvements pay its contribution. I had intended to say something of what is going on in Scotland, but one of my hon. Friends who is more native to the soil at the moment than I am has something to say on that subject.

Mr. RYE: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) seems to think this Bill will prove of benefit to landowners or bridge owners. From a perusal of Clause 3, it seems to me that the owners of a bridge may be placed in a position of difficulty and may be considerably prejudiced. By Clause 3 it is provided that if a highway authority considers a bridge:
is or may be by reason of its construction, position or state of repair, dangerous or unsuitable for the requirements of road traffic as then existing or the anticipated development thereof, or that the responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the road carried by the bridge or the approaches thereto should for any reason be transferred from the owner to a highway authority, the owner or authority may apply to the Minister for an order to provide for the reconstruction or improvement or maintenance of the bridge or road carried thereby or the approaches thereto.
By Sub-section (2) it is further provided that subject to the provisions of the Act the Minister may:
(a) require the execution of such works of reconstruction or improvement either by the owner or by a highway authority as may he specified in the order.
That means that if a highway authority considers that the bridge is not sufficiently strong and requires reconstruction or rebuilding, it may go to the Minister, without any reference to the owner, and the Minister may then, if he thinks fit, make an order requiring the
owner to carry out works of reconstruction or improvement. That order, it is provided by Sub-section (8), is to be a final order. I suggest to the House that that is not a very fair provision. In the first place there ought to be an inquiry by the Minister, and the owner should have the opportunity of attending.

Colonel ASHLEY: Has the hon. Member seen what is stated about an inquiry in Clause 9?

Mr. RYE: But does Clause 9 apply to this particular Clause 3?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly.

Mr. RYE: An inquiry will be held?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes.

Mr. RYE: And at that inquiry will the owner be entitled to bring forward expert evidence as regards the structure? May I also ask the Minister whether the owner is to be entitled to carry out this work or is bound to allow the highway authority to carry it out and then run the risk, under Clause 6, of having an order made upon him to pay the whole of the cost of the reconstruction?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member must read the Bill. In 99 cases out of 100, the private owners are a railway company or a canal company or a dock company. This is not the case of an ordinary private owner, because he does not own anything. An owner cannot be called upon to pay more than he would be liable to pay for the maintenance and reconstruction of the bridge if this Bill had not been passed.

Mr. RYE: With great respect, I do not think it is material whether the owner is a railway company or a private person. The point I wish to emphasise is that this order is to be a final one, and that there is no right of appeal against it. I suggest to the House that that is not fair or reasonable. It may even be that no inquiry would be held, because it says in Clause 9 that the Minister "may" hold inquiries. But suppose he does not hold an inquiry, and the owner, whether he be a private person or not, has no opportunity of coming forward to rebut the views of the highway authority? All the authority have to do is to "consider" that the
bridge is not sufficiently strong, and once the order is made, the thing is finished, there is finality, there is no right of appeal. Without having had any opportunity of stating his case, the owner may be called upon to pay the whole of the cost of reconstruction. Apparently he is not even to have the opportunity of carrying out the work himself. I suggest that frequently an owner is able to carry out his own work at a lower cost than it would be carried out by a highway authority. At all events he ought to have the opportunity of doing it.

Mr. HARDIE: There is no doubt that under the proposals which we are now discussing a good deal of litigation will take place, and, in the end, the cost will be thrown upon the community. I am intervening in this Debate because this Bill applies to Scotland, and the Scottish people have very deep grounds for complaining in regard to what is proposed under this Measure. The roads in Scotland are so constructed that they have very small bridges; in fact, they would not be classed as bridges in England. On this point, I would like to quote what was said by the Minister of Labour yesterday as an excuse for not pushing; on with the making of roads. He said:
I myself have been concerned in building roads, and I have consulted surveyors, and I put it to the ordinary common sense of every hon. Member that if anyone wants to build a road they have to get it purveyed, the plans made, the quantities taken out, the specifications drawn up, and then they have to let the contracts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1029; cols. 2147–48. Vol. 226.]
That was the reason which was given yesterday by the Minister of Labour for not being able to develop road transport more quickly. The right hon. Gentleman told us that more time would be required in order to get the roads properly dealt with. When the survey of the Scottish road between Glasgow and Oban was taken I want to know whether the bridges were included in that survey, and, if so, whether there was any report about the inefficiency of the bridges on that road? Was the question considered in relation to the capacity of the present bridge to carry the increased traffic of the new roads. As a matter of fact, I am informed that when the survey of
the Scottish roads took place, the bridges were left out of consideration. Surely anyone who surveys a road would face all the difficulties, because that is what the survey is intended to overcome. If the question of the bridges was the real difficulty, that ought to have been the first instead of the last consideration. What is the use of building a road 20 feet wide when you are dealing with bridges which are only 10 feet wide and in some cases only six feet wide. Surely, there was no need to have a survey of these roads and to make them 20 feet wide when you have to face the difficulty of all the narrow bridges which are now in existence.
We have been told that road development is taking place in order to find work for the unemployed. To carry out this policy, the Government begin by making large roads, and in that way increase the value of the land to the landlord. Then it is discovered after the roads have been made, that the bridges are too narrow to carry the increased traffic, and, when negotiations are commenced to widen those bridges, the landlords say: "You cannot take the land for increasing the width of your roads for these bridges unless you accept our terms." Therefore, it is a question of the landlord all the time. I would like to know, if these bridges were not included in the survey before the roads were made, what was the reason for making the roads wider than the capacity of the bridges. There must have been some reason, because, if no good reason can be given, such a policy is sheer stupidity. I do not wish to say that the Minister of Transport and those in charge of this Measure have been stupid, but probably they have been pursuing this policy in order to let the biggest landlords grab what they can. They have made the roads first, and, later on, they will come forward and ask for the cost of widening the bridges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am inclined to think that the hon. Member is asking questions which I cannot allow the Minister to answer, because the point which the hon. Member is raising has already been disposed of. The bridge does not carry the public road until the road gets to the bridge.

Mr. HARDIE: My point is that it was no use making the roads until the bridges had been widened.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is just the point which the hon. Member cannot discuss.

Mr. HARDIE: I am dealing with that which makes the bridge of use. You must have access to it in order to use the bridge, and we are now discussing the widening of these bridges in order to let the traffic which the road can carry go over them without being held up.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can discuss the widening of the bridges as much as he likes, but the roads have already been built, and he cannot discuss them.

Mr. HARDIE: I was asking why it was that, when the roads were decided upon, the bridges were left out, since the bridge is now a part of the road. If you take the road between Glasgow and Oban, it is no use saying that there is a road between Glasgow and Oban if you say that the bridge is not part of the road.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of the road does not arise.

Mr. HARDIE: Then the question of the bridge cannot arise, because it is only in connection with the roads that we have these bridges. With regard to the question of compensation, what is going to be the amount of compensation, for instance, for the right which will have to be bought from the landlord? It must be borne in mind that the counties in Scotland where these bridges are are very poor counties. Are the people in those counties to be saddled with something more because they happen to live in a country where there are many deep gorges and many bridges? Is not the Minister of Transport going to tell us that these bridges are quite suitable for the traffic of the locality, and that the necessity for their extension only arises from the traffic which comes from outside the locality—the traffic from the great cities? During the War, a beautiful bridge was built at Gretna, but the traffic in either direction which passes over that bridge is increasing every month, according to the point-to-point statistics taken in the different counties.
Who has been responsible for leaving, out of consideration the bridges, which should have been the first consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, when schemes for new roads were brought in? Public money is being flung out to relieve unemployment up to the bridges, but there it stops, and now we are asked to start with the bridges in order to make them coincide with the width of the road. It seems to me that that is not merely a mistake. I cannot imagine any surveyor or engineer making a mistake like that. It would seem that, wherever there is a town planning scheme and roads become necessary and there is a bridge anywhere, the landlord is going to be there to add to the rates of the community, because they happen to live in the neighbourhood of that bridge. Is it consistent with human development that these things should take place, especially in a country which claims to be a Christian country, and that, because someone says, "This is my little bridge," a whole community should be bottle-necked and held up? I hope the Minister will see the great need of dealing with these questions in regard to Scotland. In the Highlands conditions obtain in winter which make the bridge problem very difficult. I know that from experience, and that is all the more reason why I cannot understand how the bridges came to be left out when the question of the roads was being considered.

Mr. KELLY: I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions with regard to this Bill. If the owner of a bridge, or a highway authority, considers that the bridge, by reason of its construction and so forth, may be unsuitable for the requirements, certain things may be brought about by an Order made by the Minister, and I should like to ask the Minister what is meant by the issue of such an Order. I heard his interjection during the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), when he referred the hon. Member to Clause 9, which deals with inquiries. I see that Sub-section (8) of Clause 3 says that
An Order made under this Section shall be final and have effect as if enacted in this Act.
It was stated in the earlier part of the discussion that the Minister may hold an inquiry. That is not to say that he will
hold an inquiry, and I am anxious to know whether or not, when he has made up his mind, he will issue an Order which will be operative as though it were enacted in the Act. I notice that there is no question in the Bill of laying these Orders on the Table of the House. The only direction given in the Bill is for the laying on the Table of what are referred to as Rules, and apparently that does not include these Orders. I hope the Minister will explain what is meant there, so that the interests of the community may be protected in this matter.
I am not going to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) in an endeavour to prove that the bridges are a part of the roads, but I think it will be accepted, even by the Minister, that these improvements in the direction of widening and strengthening the bridges and making them part of the roads will enhance, not only the value of the bridges themselves, but the value of the land, to those who happen to possess it, on the road on either side of the bridge. I can see a wonderful lining of the pockets of a number of people who are concerned with land-holding in the parts where these bridges are strengthened and widened and reconstructed as set out in this Bill, and I hope that something will be done to protect the interests of the community, because it is most unfair that an advantage should be given to certain individuals who have spent no money or effort on improvements, but who will be able to charge a higher price by reason of the improved facilities when these bridges are reconstructed. I put that forward as something which will happen under this Measure, and at the same time I am very much concerned about the Orders and the powers which the Minister is taking to himself.

Colonel ASHLEY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that, as he has already spoken, he cannot speak again except by the leave of the House.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We expect an answer on the Second Reading. If
the Minister may not speak again, surely some other Member of the Government can reply?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows what the Rules of the House are, and I am obliged to call attention to them. Of course, if the House gives permission, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can reply.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Colonel ASHLEY: There are really not many points to answer, as I have already dealt during the discussion with some of those that have been raised. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who spoke last as to Orders being made by the Minister, the first answer I make to it is that this Bill has been agreed by all the interests concerned, including the County Councils Association, although, of course, that does not in any way prejudice any decision by the House. I only want to point out that this is not a hole and corner arrangement made by the Minister himself, but an agreement which, after many years of negotiation, has received the assent of all the associations representing interests that are likely to be affected. I certainly should not give this order to an individual who owned a bridge unless I had an inquiry and took every possible step to see that he was not prejudiced thereby. The hon. Member, like many others on his side of the House, has this King Charles' head in his mind, that anything that is being done must be some nefarious plan to help a private individual to extract money, improperly, out of the community—not only a private individual, but a railway, canal, or dock company. This is not a series of private bridges in all parts of the country. Practically all the bridges that will be affected by the Bill are railway and canal bridges and a few bridges in docks where there are public rights of way. I cannot conceive that to reconstruct a bridge over a railway to enable it to carry 75 tons instead of only five is going to enhance the value of the landlords' land 50 or 100 yards away. It is not a question of building a bridge and making access. It is simply making a certain number of bridges fit to carry the ordinary traffic of the district.
One word about the point raised by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).
He rather talks as though whenever we reconstruct a road in Scotland we never touch the bridges at all. Has he in his summer holidays taken a motor car and gone, we will say, from Perth to Inverness?

Mr. HARDIE: I was speaking about private bridges.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member is dealing only with private bridges, he must be an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, because the very purpose of it is to deal with bridges in private ownership—I mean bridges belonging to railways, docks, and canal companies—and we have not been able to deal with them, simply because it has been illegal up to now to make a grant from the Road Fund to these trading concerns to help them to reconstruct bridges. Moreover, those trading concerns could not divest themselves of the responsibility of maintaining the bridges without a special Act of Parliament in each case, which is obviously impossible for any considerable number on the ground of expense. Therefore, in this Bill we have enabled the Road Fund to come generously to the assistance of local authorities to do away with these obstructions to traffic. I hope after this explanation the hon. Member will realise that this is really a democratic Bill.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the fixed contribution made by certain private owners?

Colonel ASHLEY: I did not quite catch what private owners the hon. Member referred to or where they were. I could not follow him.

Mr. MacLAREN: I saw a Report in which a series of bridges were tabulated as having been reconstructed, and in all cases not more than £750 was contributed towards the reconstruction by the owner and the excess, running into thousands of pounds, had to be made up by the local authorities and by grants from the State. Will the Bill change that? Will it make it obligatory on the owners of private bridges to pay, say, 50 per cent., or less, towards the reconstruction? There is no stipulation as to their quota.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member, perhaps, has not quite appreciated
that the owners of the bridges I have in mind, namely, railway, canal and dock companies, do not want to have their bridges reconstructed. It is no advantage to them. The advantage is to the community in being able to use the bridges. Therefore, we say the owners shall not be compelled to find more towards the reconstruction than they would have had to find towards reconstruction and maintenance if the Bill had not been passed. That is only fair.

Mr. MacLAREN: I take it, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says they will not be relieved of a penny of liability, they will not be asked to pay any more than they are obliged to pay now.

Colonel ASHLEY: No.

Mr. MacLAREN: In the case I cited of the Regent's Canal, the bridge had not only to be reconstructed, but widening had to be made also and, I think, carried out at public expense, and there is a statutory restriction on private companies that they shall not be asked to pay more than £750. I know a certain place in Staffordshire where it is to the advantage of the railway company to have a better bridge arching their railway than the one they now have.

Colonel ASHLEY: Might I ask the hon. Member to communicate with me privately. Obviously, I do not know the details unless he puts them to me.

Mr. HARDIE: Take a bridge that has been reconstructed so that there is a larger area to be considered from the point of view of paint and upkeep. Is that increased payment going to be borne by the railway companies, or who is to pay it?

Mr. BROMLEY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman conceive that under this Bill he has power to grant from the Road Fund subsidies for the benefit of the community in freeing bridges from tolls? I understand the Bill is to facilitate traffic, trade and business and to benefit the community. I do not want to be carpingly critical. The Bill, as it appears to me, will allow the expenditure of public money to make more valuable certain private interests. I think that is inevitable.

Colonel ASHLEY: indicated dissent.

Mr. BROMLEY: We will agree in that respect to differ in opinion whether I may be touching the spot or not. I put a question to him perhaps 18 months ago. The reply was not very committal but it was not directly unsympathetic, that it is possible to use the Road Fund that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left for the benefit of the roads to benefit some of the working class communities. We have a great bridge at Barrow-in-Furness which serves a thickly populated working class district. It is still a toll bridge. The tolls put an embargo on the wages of the working people. They have to pay to cross it and their wages are consequently reduced. Our town has suffered very much from unemployment, and has been very hardly hit. There is a wonderful foreshore along this island. It might, if developed, become a seaside resort. It has a wonderful stretch of sand, but between it and the town is a toll which would again be an embargo on visitors taking advantage of that which the town has to offer. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a few pounds from the Road Fund would be very well expended, would be of great advantage to the individual working people of the community of Barrow-in-Furness and would assist the heroic struggle of the borough council in endeavouring to make this foreshore an attractive resort for visitors, especially from the North of England. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if under this Bill he has power to use, for the benefit of the general working class community rather than of certain interests, sums from the Road Fund in the direction which I have indicated, particularly in regard to this toll bridge at Barrow-in-Furness.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I, by the leave of the House, again answer the hon. Member? I hesitate to say so, but the speech of the hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order and has nothing to do with the Bill. I may say this that I have power, of course, to allocate money from the Road Fund to do away with toll bridges, but I cannot do so until a local authority has put its proposals before me.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say just now that his hope is to take the tolls away from the bridges?

Colonel ASHLEY: No.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that I was in a little doubt when the hon. Member was speaking just now, but the matter is quite clear to mc now. No question relating to the powers of the Minister to do away with toils can arise under this Bill.

Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order. In Clause 3, Sub-section (2, d) there is a definite reference providing
for the transfer to and vesting in a highway authority of the property in the bridge or the road carried thereby or the approaches thereto, and of all or any rights and obligations, other than any right to take tolls.
As far as I can make out from this Bill, what is going to happen is, that the private owner still will take the tolls and we, the community, are to be left to uphold all the new obligations that this Measure will bring into operation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a matter which is excluded from this Bill, and I cannot give the hon. Member the opportunity of bringing it into the Bill now under discussion.

Mr. HUDSON: Would is not be in order to complain that the private owner still secures to himself all the benefits of his former tenure of the bridge, and at the same time—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I think not, because any power to take those benefits away from the owner will not be within the Title or scope of this Bill.

Mr. MacLAREN: As this Bill is largely concerned with the expenditure that would be involved, surely, with all respect to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is of the utmost importance that such a matter as this should be weighed in the balance in considering the necessity of public money being expended on this great enterprise of bridges. Therefore, it would not exclude the question which I asked the Minister. I do not discuss tolls as tolls, as I know that that matter is excluded, but I think that it is fair to ask the Minister if, after the passing of the Bill, the tolls will still remain the private property of the owners of bridges which have been reconstructed out of the expenditure of public money.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is quite a different matter from that to which I was calling attention.

Mr. HUDSON: My desire is to point out that while the private owner retains the tolls, he certainly should be in a position to guarantee more towards the future maintenance of the bridge than is provided for by this Measure. I want to know from you, Sir, whether it is in order to ask that, as the owner is still safeguarded in the retention of the tolls, the Minister should give us better satisfaction than he has given hitherto regarding the future maintenance of the bridge and the share that the private owner should pay towards its maintenance. As far as I can see, the Minister seems to have failed to answer all the questions that have been put to him on this point. I am pressing now, with your permission, that as the tolls are fully provided for, and the owner retains those tolls, it is right that the Minister should give us better satisfaction than he has done with regard to the sums which should come from the owners to assist in the maintenance of the bridges and their approaches.

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to savings banks of local authorities.)

Any regulations that may be prescribed for the carrying on of any savings bank established by a local authority under the powers of any Act passed or to be passed may apply to such bank with or without modification all or any of the provisions contained in this Act.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not desire to take up a great deal of the time of the House on this matter, but there is a very strong feeling in the minds of the local authorities concerned that unless a Clause of this kind be added to the Bill, the future position of local authorities who may desire to develop
municipal banking will be seriously prejudiced. The Bill which is now having its passage through this House is very largely the result of the recommendations made by the Treasury Committee on Municipal Savings Banks, and it is quite clear to me when I study paragraphs 142 to 144 of the Report of that Treasury Committee on Municipal Savings Banks that they were very desirous that certain provisions with regard to the trustee savings banks should be strengthened, not only, of course, with the very desirable object of assisting the trustee savings banks, but in order to make it far more difficult for municipal banks to be developed later on. At any rate, that is the feeling which is very strongly held by the Birmingham officials who have had such a very successful experience in municipal banking during the last eight or nine years. Without elaborating the case at any great length, it is felt—I was present at a meeting the other day when this view was adopted unanimously by a very large number of delegates, including the Association of Municipal Corporations—that if the Government will include a Clause of this kind in the Bill it will then protect, not fully but to a limited extent, the right of municipalities who may be successful later on in obtaining powers to engage in municipal banking and, indeed, might give a right to existing banks like the one at Birmingham to make regulations in connection with their banks which they may desire to bring into harmony with some portions of the Bill which is now passing through this House. I hope that from that point of view the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way to accept this Clause which is suggested directly by the municipal corporations themselves.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to second the Motion.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I followed the arguments of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and it seems to me that the proposed new Clause deals with two hypothetical contingencies. It asks that the provisions of this Bill may apply to a municipal savings bank in two cases, (1) where the bank has been established under an Act already passed and (2) if a bank
should be established under an Act to be passed. Let me deal first with the argument as to a bank already established under an existing Act of Parliament. The only Act which has been passed dealing with a municipal bank is the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1919. If the hon. Member refers to that Act he will find that it provides that the Birmingham Bank shall be carried on in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Treasury. That Act provides that the Treasury shall approve or prescribe Regulations in respect of the Birmingham Bank, and the Act also provides that those Regulations may apply to the Birmingham Bank, with or without modification, any of the provisions in the Acts relating to savings banks. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, could be applied to the Birmingham Savings Bank. Therefore, so far as the first part of the new Clause is concerned, it is unnecessary, because the law now is the same as the new Clause seeks to make it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the Financial Secretary taken advice on that point, because that is not the view expressed by the advisers of the Birmingham Bank, so far as I understand.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is the advice given to me by my skilled staff.

Mr. MAXTON: Cannot the Financial Secretary exercise his own intelligence?

Mr. SAMUEL: I should not like to put my intelligence on a matter of this kind against that of people who have been engaged in this work for years. I accept their advice.

Mr. MAXTON: Are we to have this House run by the experts?

Mr. SAMUEL: The second part of the new Clause is only permissive in effect, and it assumes an hypothesis. It is to apply to any bank or banks which may be established under an Act to be passed, that is, to a bank not actually in existence but one which may be established under an Act which may be passed in the future. Therefore, the new Clause rests upon two hypothetical contingencies. It is a reasonable and old-established custom of this House to await such Acts as may be passed and to see
their provisions before we pledge ourselves to carry out certain things under those Acts. There is a further defect in the new Clause. It gives power to apply certain provisions. What provisions? So far as I understand it, only the provisions of the present Bill. The proposer and the seconder have entirely overlooked the muddle that would arise if the new Clause were put into operation. They have overlooked the necessity of providing for a mass of other savings bank legislation, which it would be necessary to apply. For these reasons, I cannot accept the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to interest.)

(1) Section two of the Savings Bank Act, 1920, shall have effect as though for the words "two pounds fifteen shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding two pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence" there were substituted the words "three pounds five shillings per centum per annum and not exceeding three pounds seven shillings and sixpence": and Section five of the National Debt (Supplemental) Act. 1888, shall have effect as though for the words "two pounds ton shillings" there were substituted the words "three pounds."

(2) Section seven of the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1861, shall have effect as though for the words "two pounds ten shillings." there were substituted the words "three pounds."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
9.0 p.m.
The effect of the Clause would be to raise the rate of interest in the country savings banks and in the Post Office Savings Bank from £2 10s. to £3 per cent. Owing to a technicality, it was not possible to move this Amendment in Committee, therefore, it has not been possible to discuss the question. It is notorious that the rates of interest paid by the Post Office in their savings bank are exceptionally low. It is a constant complaint up and down the country that the rate is below what can be got in other institutions, and for a long time there has been a great deal of legitimate grumbling. The rate paid to depositors in the joint stock banks is 3½ per cent. and in the Birmingham Municipal Bank the deposit rate is 3½ per cent. It is
fixed at that amount and can be as much as 3½ per cent. by law at the present time. In the new Clause we are not proposing to raise the deposit rate for the trustee savings bank or the Post Office Savings Bank as high as the rate in the joint stock banks or the Birmingham Bank. We are only proposing to raise it half as far, that is, to make it 3 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. The other verbiage in the Clause is because the amount that the Debt Commissioners pay to the banks is always in excess of what is paid to the depositors.
If we want to encourage thrift through the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustees savings banks it is very important that we should retain the goodwill of those who are likely to deposit their money. To do that, we must pay a rate of interest that seems reasonable. The rate at the present time is unreasonable. Two arguments may be brought against our proposal. The first argument is that the present deposit rate of 3½ per cent. in the joint stock banks is only a temporary rate, and depends upon the fact that the discount rate of the Bank of England is 5½ per cent., and that when that rate comes down again the deposit rate will not be 3½ per cent., but may fall even below the figure of 3 per cent. suggested in our proposal. I wish I felt as sure as those who take that view, that the Bank rate is going to fall in the immediate future. Unfortunately, owing to the American situation, the Bank rate went up in the early part of last month and so far from its falling, some people have been afraid that it was going to be raised still further. It may unhappily be a considerable time before it falls even a half per cent., let alone one per cent. Even if it were to fall by one per cent., I think the margin between the Bank Rate and the rate which would be paid to depositors in the Savings Banks would be quite sufficient to enable them to pay 3 per cent. interest. After all, the Birmingham Municipal Bank has paid 3½ per cent. from its inception, at any rate for a considerable time, and the general rate of interest seems, unfortunately, likely to remain high for a considerable time. If in the years to come the general rate of interest should be permanently reduced, it would be possible to alter the rate, which, after all, is I understand only permissive in any case.
In the second place, the argument is used that it may be all very well in dealing with large depositors to pay substantial rates of interest, but that you are dealing here with very small contributors, in some cases only fractional amounts of £1, and that you cannot afford to pay the small people the same rate of interest which you pay to large depositors. The whole object of the Trustee Saving Bank movement and the Post Office is to encourage thrift on a small scale. The Birmingham Municipal Bank is willing to open, and has opened, deposits with sums of one penny, and everyone knows that minute deposits of that amount are not a paying proposition. It is recognised, however, in all sorts of businesses that you have to begin to encourage people to give small orders and make small deposits. They may be small, with a loss in the first case, yet by doing so you are able to build up a large custom which in the long run it pays you to carry on. Therefore, I do not think that argument holds good. The Birmingham Municipal Bank, which has paid 3½ per cent. and taken contributions beginning at one penny, has nevertheless succeeded in making all its enterprises pay, and pay very handsomely; and I see no reason why the Trustee Saving Banks and the Post Office should not also be able to pay the rate of 3 per cent. on their deposits which we propose by this new Clause.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Motion.
The object we have in moving this Clause will really have the sympathetic interest of all hon. Members in all parts of the House, provided a case can be made out which will satisfy them. Everyone is exceedingly anxious that thrift, which is the main object of these savings banks, should be encouraged in every possible way. I should like to point out that our Amendment still leaves the margin the same; that is the margin between what is to be paid by the Bank of England for funds that are deposited there and the interest that is to be paid to depositors. Provided the Treasury leaves the first figure as it is at present, our Amendment will leave the margin the same; and they have exactly the same powers of altering the figure within the scope of the proposed new Clause. The question it seems to me is, at what rate of interest can you invest the money you
are receiving. If you have a large enough margin between investments and the interest you are paying, surely the higher figure ought to be paid out. Our figures would have been justified as long ago as 1920, but when you compare the figures of to-day with 20 years ago, there would have been a strong case for opposing our Amendment. At that time Government stocks were only paying the investor 2½ per cent. Gilt-edged stocks, before the recent slump, were paying 4¾ per cent., and you can get short-term Government Bonds which pay between 5¼ per cent. and 5½ per cent. War Loan is paying at the moment almost on a 5 per cent. basis. If you ignore the depreciation of gilt-edged stocks in the last few days and take the previous figure, surely the margin that is allowed between a return of 4½ per cent. to 4¼ per cent. and the payment to these people of 3 per cent., ought to be quite appropriate.
There is another argument. The people who invest these small savings have often been the prey of men who have brought out companies like the Liberator Building Society and a number of other institutions, often called banks, which one after another have ended in failure. Some of the most thrifty people in this country have lost nearly everything. One of the reasons why they go to these other concerns is because the rate of interest has been so exceedingly high compared with the figure which they are offered here. I am not suggesting that we can compete with those figures, but when you have the rate of interest so exceedingly low you are almost tempting these people to look to these other investments instead of keeping their small savings in the security of these Trustee Saving Banks. There is one other point, rather more in the form of a question, because I have been unable to check it. Is it the fact that every year something like £1,000,000 goes from the Post Office into National funds? If I am right, I believe that £1,000,000 was received last year by the national income from the Post Office Savings Bank. I do not think we ought to receive any income at all from the Post Office Savings Bank; and I do not think the hon. Member can justify it. But that seems to me to be a further reason, and a good one, why this Clause should be accepted and, therefore, I hope
he will give it the most sympathetic consideration he can.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will answer first the question as to the money paid by the Post Office into the Exchequer. It is true, I believe, that the Post Office does pay back to the Exchequer something in the nature of a surplus. But it must be remembered that for a large number of years the interest given by the Post Office to depositors was greater than the sum that the State earned, and that the State has lost a considerable amount of money in this way in the past. Two-and-a-half per cent. Consols at one time gave a yield of 2¼ per cent. or less to the State, but 2½ per cent. was paid to the depositor. If the Exchequer is getting back a little now it must be remembered that the State has paid considerable millions towards capital deficiencies in order to make good its obligations to the public. I do not know that I need trouble the House with a long explanation as to the reasons why we cannot accept the new Clause. We had a tussle over it upstairs.

Mr. KELLY: No, it was not discussed upstairs.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then I will give my reason for not accepting the new Clause. It means an increase of interest from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. in the trustee banks and in the Post Office. This matter was thrashed out by the Montagu Committee in 1916, not when stocks were issued at 110 and yielding 2½ per cent. 20 years ago, but in the middle of the War, when we were paying 5, 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent. for our money. This is what the report of that Committee stated and I read it because it exactly answers the case made out for this new Clause. It was a Committee on War loans and the Small Investor, and dealt with the case of the small depositor. The Report stated:
We do not recommend any increase in the rate of interest allowed on ordinary Savings Bank deposits. … A moderate increase in the existing rate would result in imposing a heavy charge on the taxpayer in respect of the £250,000,000 of existing deposits without, so far as we can judge, attracting any appreciable amount of new money. Although 2½ per cent. might appear to be a low return, it must be remembered that institutions such as the savings banks cannot adjust their rates from time to time according to prevailing market conditions, but must adopt a rate
which, taking one period with another, will preserve its financial stability. The experience of the past has shown that 2½ per cent. is fully as high a rate as the State can afford to pay under these conditions, and having regard to the fact that savings bank depositors as a class look to the State for the safety and the accessibility of their capital, much more than to the interest paid, we do not think that a case has been made out for increasing it.

That Report exactly meets the case of the Mover of this new Clause, and I should be boring the House if I elaborated my opposition in any way.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 132.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[9.21 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderton, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shield, G. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles, W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Clarke, A. B.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N)
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett. George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Grant, Sir J. A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Porring, Sir William George


Bevan, S. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P.
Pitcher, G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Rome, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. I.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cassels, J. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rye, F. G.


Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lamb, J. O.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Meller, R. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Flelden, E. B.
Merriman. Sir F. Boyd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ganzonl, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wragg, Herbert


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts, Sir Thomas
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.

CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment as to restriction on number of accounts and double deposits.)

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "banks," in line 30, to the word "and," in line 32.
I would point out that I have subsequent Amendments on the Paper—in page 6, line 39, after the word "shall," to insert the words "cease to," and to leave out from the word "effect," in line 39, to the end of the Sub-section. These two later Amendments are all part of the one I am moving now, and, if agreed to, they would make the Clause read:
(1) Section thirty-eight of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (which prohibits double accounts in trustee savings banks) and Sub-6ection (2) of Section one of the Savings Bank Act, 1887 (which provides that regulations shall prohibit a person from being a depositor in both a trustee savings bank and the Post Office Savings Bank or from having two separate accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank) shall cease to have effect, and accordingly Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Savings Bank Act, 1891, shall cease to have effect.
The object of this Amendment, which, I agree, is not as important as the last Clause, is of considerable importance to those who are interested in trustee savings banks. By the Savings Banks Act, 1863, Section 38, a person who opened a deposit in a bank was not allowed to make any deposit in any other account or any other savings bank, and the Act of 1887 prohibits a person from being a depositor in both a trustee savings bank and the Post Office Savings Bank, or from having two separate accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank. The Act of 1891, after reaffirming this position, goes on to say that if it is found that a person has two accounts in the way that had been prohibited by previous Acts, he shall be liable to forfeit any amount illegally deposited. The House will understand that there is a rather severe penalty imposed on any person who has infringed the provisions of previous Savings Banks Acts. No doubt the reason at the back of the
minds of those who introduced those Clauses prohibiting a person having two accounts, one of which was in the Post Office and another in a trustee savings bank, was that they should limit the amount of money which might be received in a year. A number of years ago this limit was £30. A person could then pay in only £30 during the year, and the total money that he was allowed to have in was £200. That was raised to £50 and, finally, to what it is at the present time, when a person is allowed to deposit £500 during the year. There is no limit to the amount he may have in the bank, but all the money has to be in one account, and he has to make a declaration to say that he has no other interest in any account in the Post Office or in any other savings bank.
The object of the Clause which the Government are introducing in this Bill is to relax this prohibition to a certain extent, and to allow a person to have one account in a trustee savings bank and, at the same time, an account in the Post Office Savings Bank. The object of our Amendment is to remove the restriction altogether. We do not see why it is needful to have any prohibition if it is for the convenience of a person. Sometimes a man may like to have two accounts for banking for different objects. Seeing hat you have this prohibition as to the amount of money you can have—which we are anxious to remove as we suggested in Committee, but which we are not pressing to remove now—we do not see why the Government need adhere to the Regulation and not allow as much freedom as possible so as to give these trustee savings banks every possible help to get depositors. I should like to draw the attention of the House to an interesting pamphlet written by Mr. Thomas Henderson, the actuary of the savings bank at Glasgow, on the subject of savings banks. He points out that what we are proposing has been done on the Continent, and a relaxation on these lines has been introduced in Continental countries. He says:
Indeed, it is not too much to say that an unqualified limitation of this character may seriously prejudice the full usefulness of the banks by neglecting to take cognisance of the psychology of small depositors who desire to earmark savings for specific purposes, such as holidays, travel, family education, etc., by opening one or more accounts in the same bank to be used for the deposit of money set aside for such objects. The savings banks in many other countries have abolished or modified the restrictions with considerable advantage to the depositors in the banks.
That is certainly one of the reasons which I bring forward in support of the Amendment which I am moving, to allow greater liberty in regard to deposits and to get permission for the depositor to have these accounts, seeing that there is still the limit which covers the whole of the accounts.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to explain why it is that it would be an advantage to depositors to be able to have accounts in more than one bank. There are a certain number of cases in which some individuals prefer banking in these savings banks to banking in the ordinary way with a joint stock bank. There are officials on certain bodies—it may be some friendly society or savings bank club, or something of that kind—and these people may want to be able to have an account, generally quite small, in one city where their interest lies, but being officials of a saving institution in a city not far away, they would also like to take up an account in another bank in that adjoining city. It seems to us an entirely unnecessary restriction to prevent that being done. There are two possible objections to this Amendment and I think they can both be met. The first objection is that this power might be improperly used and that persons other than those whose interests are catered for by the trustee savings banks might be tempted to have a large number of accounts in savings banks up and down the country. Personally I regard that as a rather fantastic objection. The fact is that to-day there are no very special privileges attaching to an account in a trustee savings bank. The rate of interest is not particularly high, and I do not think that objection is likely in practice to arise.
The second point that they are limited by such restrictions as the Treasury choose to impose. The Treasury chooses to impose a limit of £500 in one year and therefore I do not think it would be of great advantage to try to multiply accounts and so get round the law. The Financial Secretary, I believe, put forward another objection of a somewhat contrary kind. He says that we should still want to impose a restriction on the aggregate amount in all these trustee banks, and if we still impose a limit on the aggregate it will be administratively difficult to check it, if people are allowed to have accounts in more than one savings bank. I do not think that argument amounts to much. It is purely arbitrary on the part of the Treasury that they should impose this limit of £500 on the aggregate amount. It is not a statutory limitation; it is a limitation by order or regulation of the Treasury, and it would be possible for the Treasury to remove that particular form of order, and substitute one to the effect that the amount in any one trustee savings bank could not be more than £500. I doubt whether there is any likelihood, under that form, of the privilege being abused, and, if it were abused, I cannot see that any great disadvantage would arise to the Treasury or the savings banks. They would only have a larger amount of deposits than they have at the present time. The Amendment will provide a certain amount of additional advantage to people who, for particular reasons, find it desirable to have accounts in more than one savings bank.

Mr. SAMUEL: Upstairs in Committee the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken expressed their views to me on this subject at some length and they scolded me for not accepting their Amendment on that occasion. I have gone to a considerable amount of trouble to look into this proposal again so that I may convince myself that I was right in my view and that they were wrong. Clause 10, as amended in accordance with this proposal, would, it appears to me, abolish all restrictions of every kind, with one exception, which is that a man must not have more than one trustee savings bank in which he keeps an account. He might have as many accounts as he liked in that one trustee savings bank, and the limit
would be up to £500 deposited in any one year. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue but I do not think the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) quite realised what he said when he omitted to mention that a man might have a number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank as long as the total in one year did not exceed £500. I would point out to hon. Members that we have gone a long way in the last few years in the direction of opening up, by law, the conveniences of these banks. As the hon. Member for Finsbury pointed out, in pre-War days the limit was £50 in one year and £200 aggregate—I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to mark that figure. Now the limit is £500 deposits in one year, and there is no aggregate limit, and if a man is fortunate enough to save £500 a year he can put in that amount each year for 50 years and reach an aggregate of £25,000. The grievance which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment seek to make out as to the limitation of facilities is not well-founded in view of those figures. I understood the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) to say that he supported the idea of private thrift and so do we. That is the very essence of the proposal of the Bill and of these Regulations. We have been asked why we have these restrictions and I think the answer is quite plain. The hon. Member for Finsbury read an extract from a report by Mr. Henderson. I will give another extract:
Whatever be the reason for this limitation of the savings bank account, it is doubtful if, except insofar as it restricts the use of the banks to the genuine savings bank depositor….
The "genuine" savings bank depositor is the point. We do not want the rich man or the big capitalist—the hated capitalist—to make use of these banks. We want to do the very opposite to that which is advocated by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, because they want to make the conveniences of these banks applicable to the rich and, perhaps, to the banks themselves. We do not want that. Let me show how it would operate. Here is an example, not taken out of imagination, but an example from actual facts. Assume that the bank rate is 3 per cent. as it was in March, 1923. The joint stock bank deposit rate then was 1 per cent. and Treasury Bills
were then about 2¼ per cert. or less. If there had been no restrictions on the facilities of these trustee savings banks you would have had people causing their money to flow into the trustee savings banks in order to get 2½ per cent., with a Government guarantee, which would be a larger amount than their money could earn in the open market. But directly the value of money rose in the open market, these rich people, who had put their money into the trustee savings banks, would at once withdraw it to get more money for their capital in the open market. The National Debt Commissioners would be called upon to find large sums of money, when money was rising in value and when capital value was falling, and you would have a very large sum falling in expense on the shoulders of the taxpayers, which is what we want to avoid. Certain banks did propose to deposit large sums of money in the Post Office savings banks in 1923, when there was no limit, so the limit was then reimposed. If the Committee will reflect, I am sure they will agree that we are protecting the genuine depositor by resisting this Amendment.

Mr. BENN: The Financial Secretary misunderstood me when I interrupted him just now. I was great surprised that the party of private thrift should speak about making grave concessions. Why did he use the word "grave"? The Amendment is intended to facilitate investments by small investors, and the hon. Gentleman speaks about savings banks as if they were night clubs. The application of "D.O.R.A." so beloved of the Home Secretary, should be extended to the Treasury instead of to savings institutions. As regards the classic illustration about foreign banks investing and withdrawing their money at a certain time so as to produce a grave financial crisis in this country, the fantastic nature of the illustration robs it of any cogency in debate. There is one point where I think the Financial Secretary was not dealing fairly with the Committee, and that was when he was quoting from the Report of Mr. Henderson. He suggested that Mr. Henderson supported this limitation of the total amount of deposit, but nothing of the kind occurred. Has the hon. Gentleman
got the Report in his hand, or was it simply an extract supplied by a private secretary?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have seen Mr. Henderson almost daily. He has been one of our greatest supporters and his Association has helped us in drafting this Bill.

Mr. BENN: I will read Mr. Henderson's Report. He says:
Whatever be the reasons for this limitation of one savings bank account, it is doubtful if, except in so far as it restricts the use of banks to the genuine savings bank depositor, its vigorous application today is in the best interests of thrift.
The hon. Gentleman did not quote that last sentence. Mr. Henderson goes on:
Indeed, it is not too much to say that an unqualified limitation of this character."—
This is from Mr. Henderson, whom the hon. Gentleman sees daily and whose advice and assistance have been so helpful—
may seriously perjudice the full usefulness of the banks by neglecting to take cognisance of the psychology of the small depositor.
It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had read the whole thing and shown us that Mr. Henderson supports our Amendment rather than the attitude of the Treasury. What the public will notice, apart from the technicalities of this difficult subject, is the reluctance of the Government, who pretend to be the friends of the private investor, to give him facilities to invest his money in these banks.

Mr. KELLY: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not treated us to-day to some of the statements that we had in Committee upstairs, when he suggested

that we might see the great combines of this country and the joint stock banks rushing with their money into these savings banks if we removed the restriction on the number of accounts. The reply that came from our side upstairs was that at last we had found the reason for Lord Birkenhead going to Imperial Chemicals. It was to arrange for that combine to have accounts in the 119 savings banks throughout the country. The statement made by the hon. Member to-night as to why these separate accounts might not be held by people in trustee savings banks and the Post Office Savings Bank amazes me. Cases have been put before him of people who were holding small trusteeships or small accounts in connection with their establishments, and of workmen who were carrying on certain clubs for their people, but despite all the reasons which were given, there is the objection of the Treasury. While I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Henderson is very anxious for this Bill and has shown that anxiety in many ways, I am sure that that anxiety does not lead him to think that it cannot be amended with advantage. I have not consulted Mr. Henderson about this Amendment, but I am pretty sure that, judging by what was read out this evening, he would agree with this proposal which we have put forward. I am amazed at hon. Members opposite, who pose as such friends of the small investor, opposing such an Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 78.

Division No. 279.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fielden, E. B.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Carver, Major W. H.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Aibery, Irving James
Cassels, J. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ganzonl, Sir John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cope, Major Sir William
Grant, Sir J. A.


Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Istingtn., N.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bevan, S. J.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Storry-Deans, R.


Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perring, Sir William George
Tinne, J. A.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pilcher, G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ralne, Sir Walter
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Sir Thomas


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Lamb, J. Q.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, Sir Lewis
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


McLean, Major A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wragg, Herbert


Meller, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wallace.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shield, G. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, N)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Garre-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Pali[...], John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Whiteley.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — RECONSTITUTED CREAM BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Regulation of sale of reconstituted cream.)

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not select the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), to leave out Clause 1, as it would have the effect of destroying the Bill.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "immediately."
I am sorry that it has not been possible to discuss Clause 1 as a whole, because I wanted to raise an important issue on it. The Clause provides that:
reconstituted cream shall not be sold or offered or exposed for sale for human consumption under any description or designation including the word 'cream' unless that word is immediately preceded by the word 'reconstituted'.
I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that that may raise very serious difficulties for people
in the trade who are using this commodity. The Parliamentary Secretary's attention is particularly directed to the fact that a person must not expose this commodity for human consumption under any description or designation. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with the circumstances in which reconstituted cream has become of much more general use in the last 12 months than was formerly the case. The Minister of Health 12 months ago, or more, presented to the House Regulations which prohibited entirely the use of any preservative in farm-produced cream. There was medical evidence that such a Regulation was desirable, and there was medical evidence on the other side that such a Regulation was quite unnecessary in the interests of health. Whatever the merits of that may have been, the fact has emerged that in many districts about half of the ordinary trade in farm-produced cream has gone, and that a very large section of the confectionery trade, owing to the impossibility of keeping cream fresh for the period required, has had to have recourse to some other article. Every week they are using increasing quantities of this reconstituted cream, made from perfectly good farm products—butter and dried milk, with some liquid milk added to it.
According to my reading of the Bill, people who engage in the confectionery trade and make things like cream buns and cream puffs, and those who are engaged in the development of the ice-cream trade, will be required, if they use reconstituted cream, to label their products either as "ice reconstituted cream" or "reconstituted cream puff" or "reconstituted cream bun." The ice-cream trade is a very important one now to the farming community. Anybody who has read the reports of the recent dairy conference in this country will realise the very great importance which is attached by the dairying business to the ice-cream trade.
It is suggested in some quarters that my view is not a correct interpretation of the Bill, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that only a few days ago the Government had to take considerable portions of Parliamentary time on two separate occasions in order to put right a very serious error with
regard to industrial assurance which occurred in legislation in 1923 as the result of the advice of the Conservative Government of that day. In that year I withdrew an Amendment to a Bill on the advice of the Government of the day, and the consequence was that people engaged in that particular business found themselves in grave danger of serious financial difficulty, because their application of ordinary common sense to plain English was not regarded as a correct interpretation of the Bill by the law officers. Traders generally are very nervous about the wording of this Clause, and I am moving this Amendment to delete the word "immediately" in order to make it quite plain that people will not have to apply the word "reconstituted" to articles in which the reconstituted commodity is used for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, which, I agree, is an important one, has raised certain matters which affect the principles of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word or two on one of the points he has raised, for by that means we may, perhaps, be able to expedite the Bill, and it may not be necessary for him to move his other Amendments. The object of this Bill is to secure that reconstituted cream shall not be sold as cream, and the Bill provides that if the word "cream" is used in describing it that word "cream" shall be immediately preceded by the word "reconstituted." It is also provide that vessels containing this article shall be similarly labelled. But it is not intended, and I give this assurance to the hon. Gentleman after taking the best legal advice I am able to obtain, that the Bill shall apply to such products as fancy cakes or ice cream which may be made of reconstituted cream. What this Bill is intended to do—and I think this will meet the general acceptance of the House is to stop the sale of this product under the name of "cream." To sell it as cream without further describing it is in the nature of a fraud en the purchaser. We also believe, and that is one of the reasons why the Government
have adopted the Bill, that the sale of reconstituted cream as cream is prejudicial to the interests of British agriculture generally. That is, briefly, the intention and the object of the Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance on these points.
As regards his immediate Amendment, I do not think he should press it, because if the word "reconstituted" does not appear immediately before the word "cream" there may be a means of avoiding what we all desire to secure. If it were permissible to separate the two words and have something inserted between the word "reconstituted" and the word "cream," there would be very considerable danger. I do not think hon. Members will say this Bill is going too far in saying that if anyone sells this commodity he must label it as reconstituted cream, and that the two words must follow one another, with no possibility for anyone to interpose some word between the two when advertising the commodity. Taking the Measure as a whole, I think the hon. Member will see that it would be inadvisable for us to permit any vendor to insert any words between these two words.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Registration of premises where reconstituted cream is manufactured or sold.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "cream," in line 2, to the word "or" in line 5 and to insert instead thereof the words
by any person solely for his domestic purposes.
This Amendment is moved to make it perfectly plain that in no circumstances is it intended to require private premises to be registered. In order to prevent the possibility of fraud such as I have indicated, one of the proposals in the Bill is that anybody who sells reconstituted cream shall be registered, but there is no desire on the part of the Government, or those who are supporting the Bill, that premises shall be registered where this particular substance is made entirely for private use.

Mr. ALEXANDER: This Amendment may be very desirable from the point of
view of the Government, but I cannot help thinking that, as they have found it necessary to go so far, they might have gone a good deal further. From the reports of analysts, we know that it is easy to detect the difference between raw cream produced on the farm and reconstituted cream. Moreover, the first Clause requires that every receptacle used for the conveyance of reconstituted cream shall be clearly labelled. With those two facts in mind, it really seems unnecessary that there should be any special registration of these premises. It is also well that we should know exactly what will be covered by the term "domestic purposes" in connection with the process of making reconstituted cream. I would like to ask whether a small confectioner who possesses a small emulsifier and who wishes to make a little reconstituted cream for use in his confectionery or for his own private use, will came under this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: Obviously, this Clause is intended to deal with those persons who are selling this particular substance for profit. If a person is using this particular substance for his own private purposes and not selling it for profit, he would not come within this provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert the words
(d) to the sale, exposure, or keeping for sale for consumption off the premises of pastry or confectionery or any article of food in the preparation of which re-constituted cream is used.
The object of this Amendment is to secure that it shall not be necessary to register premises where reconstituted cream is manufactured solely for the purpose of being used for pastry and confectionery or for consumption on the premises. This Amendment would enable the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health who are responsible for the preservative regulations to do an act of justice to a trade which has been very severely handicapped by the regulations. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the extent to which the confectionery trade of the country has been damaged by the operation of the regulations. I have made considerable inquiries in the trade with which I
am familiar, and one society which applied to me state that, before the regulations were put into force, they had a cream trade of between 70 to 80 gallons.

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is seeking to discuss the effect of certain preservative regulations. This Amendment simply raises the question as to whether certain articles of food which contain reconstituted cream come within this Clause, and therefore I contend that the hon. Member cannot discuss the beneficial effects of regulations which were issued some time ago.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the hon. Member is discussing the effect which those preservatives might have on cream.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am arguing that it should not be necessary to register premises where reconstituted cream is being manufactured for use on the premises, and I submit that that is quite in order.

Sir K. WOOD: Further on the point of Order. This Amendment simply seeks to exempt from the provisions of the Clause certain articles of pastry or confectionery. It does not raise the question of what premises are or are not to be registered, but simply raises the question whether these particular articles are to be exempt from the provisions of the Measure. As I have already stated, the question whether or not these articles are included in this Measure is simply a legal question, and I submit that the question of the Preservatives in Food Regulations, which I am prepared fully to discuss at the proper time, does not come within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Parliamentary Secretary has had experience in the legal profession, which I have not, but you will see, Mr. Speaker, that my Amendment is moved as an additional proviso to Clause 2, and the whole purpose of moving it is to avoid registration of the premises in which goods of this class are dealt with.

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is only a question of this Amendment having the effect of exempting those articles from the pro-
visions of the Bill, I do not see that the question of preservatives comes in.

Mr. ALEXANDER: With great respect, I am not submitting that we should discuss the merits of the Preservatives Regulations; I am simply arguing, on behalf of people who have been hit by the Preservatives Regulations, that they should not be further handicapped by being required to have their premises registered. Therefore, I hope that you will allow me to proceed with my argument. The people whose business it is to make these various articles, in which cream has been a component part in the past, have found that, owing to the position created by the Preservatives Regulations, they are quite unable to make those articles. In order to do so they must have cream which will keep for from two to four days after it has been taken from the farm, and that is quite impossible under the present Regulations of the Ministry of Health. They have, therefore, as I find in response to my inquiries all over the country, turned to an increasing extent to the substitution of reconstituted cream for the purpose, and solely for the purpose, of manufacturing confectionery and other goods of that kind.
These people have been severely handicapped financially in their business by the working of the Preservatives Regulations, and, if they can now find a way out by using perfectly good farm products, like butter and dried milk, in place of the other commodity which it is not now possible for them to use, and if they do not sell that commodity as cream, but only use it in making up other commodities, why should not exemption for them from having their premises registered be included with the other exemptions from this requirement? That is the whole case, and I think that, if the Parliamentary Secretary looks at it carefully, he will see that it is quite a sound case. We do not ask that people who make reconstituted cream in order to sell it as cream should be exempted, but only people who are using it for confectionery and other similar purposes.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not propose to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the effect of the preservative regulations,
for the reasons which I have stated. It may be that private enterprise is able to deal with those regulations, but that the co-operative societies are unable to surmount them. The trade generally have adapted themselves to the regulations, which have been made in the interest of the public, in order to get purer food. The hon. Member desires by this Amendment, quite rightly, to exempt from the provisions of the Measure the sale of pastry or confectionery in the preparation of which reconstituted cream is used. My answer to that is that there is no intention, nor is there any justification, for considering that such articles are in any way affected by the proposals in Clause 1. The whole of the matter deals with the subject of reconstituted cream alone. The hon. Member need not be under any misapprehension that this matter is affected by these proposals.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I still think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am moving an extra proviso to Clause 2 to provide that the premises in which these things are made shall be exempt from registration. I am not disputing the point he is making that it is not intended to include these articles.

Sir K. WOOD: I quite appreciate that, and I know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—a right and proper object. Inasmuch as Clause 1 deals only with reconstituted cream, there is no ground, from the legal point of view, to apprehend that there is any necessity to make this exemption. That was fully dealt with in the Committee. I do not desire, however, that anyone should be adversely affected by the proposal who ought not to be, and I undertake, therefore, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, again to consult the Attorney-General to see whether there is any possibility, which I do not believe for a moment, of anyone being affected in the way suggested by the Amendment, which I am, therefore, unable, at any rate to-night, to accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move in page 2, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I am sure that this Amendment will appeal to Members on all sides of the House. One of the traditions of the House has been to protect the liberty of the subject as far as possible. This Sub-section is not likely to commend itself to any lover of liberty:
If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for supposing that any unregistered premises are being used for the manufacture of reconstituted cream contrary to the provisions of this section, he may grant a search warrant.
I cannot for the life of me understand why, in view of the other stringent conditions in the Bill, and the ease with which you can detect whether reconstituted cream is being sold as farm cream or not, you should on top of all that, decide that anyone who is thought to have a little reconstituted cream in his house is to be in danger of the operation of a search warrant granted by any magistrate upon the swearing of an oath by a common informer. No one is going to be perfectly free from constant interruptions and irritations. I cannot imagine for a moment that the Government would have put such a Clause in the Bill if they had drafted it themselves. This is the sort of Clause usually found in Bills promoted by interested persons. I should say that it is because the Government have adopted at very short notice so ill-considered a Measure as this that they have allowed such a large encroachment on the liberty of the subject to remain as a standing Clause in the Bill. I am quite sure on reconsideration, and especially if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will consult the Home Secretary as to the effect of this Clause, that if he will not withdraw the Clause altogether, he will at least give us a very substantial Amendment.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I note that the hon. Gentleman described this Bill as an ill-considered Measure, and I have no doubt that that describes the attitude of himself and his friends towards this Bill. I would point out that this particular provision follows a very well-known precedent. There is a Section of the Public Health Act which makes a similar provision in respect of unsound food, and
there is also a similar provision in the Foods and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, which authorises officers of the Ministry of Agriculture to enter any premises which he has reason to think ought to be registered, as butter and margarine factories. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to this procedure, and that when there is a likelihood of the law being evaded there should not be proper provision made enabling the officers to take such steps as are necessary to enforce the provisions of this Measure. I, therefore, ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain whether there is not an omission in this Sub-section? Surely the words should be "Justice of the Peace sitting in open Court." Under this provision it seems to be possible for anyone to go to the private house of a Justice of the Peace just as people do in order to get anti-vaccination papers and other documents signed. Apparently, as the Clause now stands, anyone can go to the private house of a Justice of the Peace and obtain a search warrant. It would be much more satisfactory if words were inserted to the effect that such a warrant could only be granted by a Justice of the Peace sitting on the bench.

Sir K. WOOD: That point has not occurred to me. I will look into it, and see if there is any necessity for further consideration, but I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's objection. I should have thought that a Justice of the Peace would have as much regard for his duties and to sworn statements made to him wherever he sat. Whether he sat in his library or whether he sat in open Court, I think he would have regard to his duties and responsibilities. I will see whether there is anything in the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ALEXANDER: I did not move one or two Amendments, in order to save time. Therefore, I think it is necessary to make a few explanations on the Third Reading of the Bill. To the general idea of this Bill, which is to let the consumer know where cream is offered as cream
which is reconstituted cream, instead of ordinary farm cream, we have no objection. If tradesmen in general are offering for sale as cream something which is not cream direct from the farm, the public are entitled to know, and from that point of view the object of the Bill is perfectly good. There is, however, a grave difficulty which will be set up for the tradesmen who will not be offering cream for sale as cream but will be using, in the special trade circumstances to which I have referred, the reconstituted article to take the place of cream which they can no longer get in satisfactory quantities to keep for the length of time necessary for the manufacturing purposes in which they are engaged.
It is a matter of very great regret that whilst this Bill does something to make known to the consumer in general whether he is getting the reconstituted article made from farm products, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the public from believing that they are getting either direct or in restaurants, actual cream, when what they are getting is really much inferior in its constituents than is reconstituted cream. I have asked our own analyst to look into the matter, and he informs me that synthetic cream, which was covered in the draft Bill laid before this House last year, is something which can be manufactured not from farm products like butter and dried milk but can be made from almost any kind of edible fats, with the addition of a little milk. This Bill does nothing to protect the public against what is most injurious to them and what is, perhaps, the most fraudulent part of the trade which is carried on. They may go to any of the restaurants in the country to-day and may be in danger of getting commodities supplied as cream which are not cream at all. It is a matter of great regret to Members on this side of the House that whereas the Bill of last year would have protected the public against the use of synthetic cream, there is no such provision in this Bill.
I would point out to the agriculturists that it is of very great importance to the dairy interests in general that they should have an actual outlet for their surplus milk, and that one of the outlets to-day for that surplus is the very large manufacture of dried milk. They may think that in the Bill which is now passing into
law something is being done to protect the particular business of the man who deals in raw cream, and I think they are, they may be doing the most serious injury to farmers who sell a large part of their surplus milk to factories for the purpose of its being turned into cheese or dried milk. They are getting now a large business which is helping the farmer in the manufacture of reconstituted cream, which is actually made from butter and dried milk. If people are selling reconstituted cream as cream, it ought to be made plain to the public what is reconstituted cream and what is raw cream; but we must not lose sight of the fact that in doing this we may be doing a very serious injury to some of the other parts of the dairy trade who have to rely for the disposal of their surplus milk upon the manufacture of the articles I have mentioned, as much as they rely upon the sale of their raw cream.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is singularly unfortunate in the statement he has just made. His attitude, as far as I understand it—I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are associated with him—is that he really does not like the Bill but is afraid to vote against it. He has based his opposition mainly on the ground that it does not apply to what is called synthetic cream. He says that he and his friends are of the opinion that it fails because it does not apply to that particular substance. But the particular substance known as synthetic cream is already provided for under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act. The sale of synthetic cream as "cream" would be an offence under that Act already and, therefore, there is no need for any provision in this Bill. Therefore, the only real matter which the hon. Member is able to bring forward in order to show his dislike and disapproval of these proposals rests upon a misapprehension as to the law of the land.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In that case the Parliamentary Secretary is criticising his own friends who last year drafted a Bill specifically providing against the adulteration of synthetic cream.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member cannot get away by referring to anyone else. He must take the responsibility for the statements he has made and which are
within the recollection of the House. With the large funds at the disposal of the societies with which he is connected I should have thought he would have been able to have obtained legal advice on such a matter before he made his speech. Then he says that he is afraid that under these proposals there will be no outlet for the surplus milk of this country. The Bill provides that the surplus milk of this country shall be used, but shall be used honestly. If milk is used in a particular way, to make what is known as reconstituted cream, it is only fair that the general public should know what they are receiving and paying for. The suggestion that this is in any way prejudicial to the outlet of surplus milk of this country is again entirely unfounded and beside the mark. All that this Measure seeks to do, and I think it is a valuable one from the point of view of the public and the agriculturist, is to provide that when people sell a substance known as reconstituted cream the public should know what they are having and what they are paying for. Hon. Members opposite, if they accept the view of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will divide against the Bill and we shall then know exactly where they stand.

Orders of the Day — POLICE MAGISTRATES SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir V. Henderson.]

Mr. BATEY: Do the Government really intend to take the Second Reading of this Bill at this late hour and on the eve of the Easter recess? Above all others this is a Bill on which the Government should give some explanation to the House. Yet the Government propose to push the Bill through without a single word of explanation. It is the fourth Bill of the kind that the Government have brought before the House. We have had Bills dealing with diplomatic pensions, judicial pensions, Dominion Governors' pensions, and now there is
this stipendiary magistrates Bill. We have had no explanations of this Bill such as were provided in the case of the previous Bills. Previous Bills were accompanied by a White Paper that was easily understood. It told us what the pensions are, and what they would be when the Bill relating to them was passed. No one can understand the White Paper on this Bill. The Bill tells us the following:
To a magistrate who has served seven years or upwards a further addition to the annual allowance, first, of one-sixtieth in respect of each additional year of such service until the completion of the tenth year of such service; again of two-sixtieths in respect of each additional year of such service after the completion of the said tenth year of service, until the completion of the twentieth year of service.
Who can understand that? The Home Secretary should tell the House frankly what is the average pension received by these stipendiary magistrates now, and what would be the average pension when the Bill is passed? There is one paragraph in the White Paper that is really illuminating. It says:
At present pensions in force cost about £6,000 per annum, and it is estimated that under present arrangements this figure would, at the end of 40 years, come to an average of £8,500 per annum.
After 40 years, the amount will increase by £2,500. That gives one the impression that the Government think that the total amount of increase of pensions by £2,500 is not sufficient, and therefore they want an increase at the present time without waiting for 40 years. The last Act dealing with the superannuation of stipendiary magistrates was passed as recently as 1915. What need is there for the Government at this late hour to attempt to rush through this Bill? I take it that in 1915 the Government acted fairly towards the stipendiary magistrates? That being so, there is no need to come to the House now for the purpose of rushing through this Bill. If it is a question of altering Acts of Parliament dealing with pensions, are there not other Acts which could be far better altered and which are more in need of being altered? I could suggest a far stronger case for altering other Acts. The Government have put up posters and placards as to the pensions given to widows, but not as to increased pensions to diplomatic servants, the Judicial Committee or to Dominion Governors, and if
this Bill passes I do not think they will add these pensions to the list on their placards. I could make a far stronger case than this for altering an Act of Parliament. The Government passed an Act to give old age pensions of 10s. a week to men at 65 and to widows. If the Government really want to do something, let them turn their attention to that Act, and they will be doing something worth doing. Ten shillings a week is so small that it does not enable a man to give up work. Not only did they give only 10s. a week to men of 65, but they took away far bigger benefits than the men were receiving. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is being led into discussing another Act.

Mr. BATEY: I apologise, but hon. Members were rather denying what I feel strongly upon. If they had brought forward a Bill to increase the pension to men of 65 and widows, we would have helped them to pass it quickly. Instead of that, they want to make sure of increasing the pensions of people who are already receiving fairly decent pensions. What have these stipendiary magistrates done to warrant the introduction of this Bill? I should be out of order if I dealt with one stipendiary magistrate who made remarks about South Wales miners a week ago, and I will not go into that. There is nothing which can be said for increasing these pensions as compared with those of men at 65. We opposed all the increases of pensions to diplomatic servants, the Judicial Committee and Dominion Governors, because we thought they were not justified, and we oppose this on the same ground. We believe that if the Government want to increase pensions, they should start with the poorest of the poor, and not believe in that old adage, "To him that hath shall be given." We do not agree with that, and we say, "To him that hath, shall not be given." They should give to those who have not, and therefore I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. TINKER: I want to find out the real position in regard to this Bill. I understand it is based on the present salary of £1,500 a year, and that, at present, after 15 years these magistrates are entitled to fifteen-sixtieths, and for every year afterwards one-sixtieth until
in 30 years they reach the maximum pension of £1,000 or two-thirds of the present salary. The Bill, I understand, is to amend that, and that after eleven years, they will get two-sixtieths for each year or £50 instead of £25, reaching the maximum in 20 years instead of 30 years. The argument is that owing to county court judges being in a better position, equality should be given to these magistrates. That was the argument of the Under-Secretary.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I made that statement but I did not say that that was the reason why we were introducing the Bill. I said that the reason for the Bill was that, in existing circumstances, the average age at which a magistrate takes office is 52, and he could not qualify for full pension, because he has to retire at 70.

Mr. TINKER: I thought the main argument was that other people were getting it.

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, but I mentioned that fact.

Mr. TINKER: At a time like this I submit there is no need for this increase. The argument has been put forward on several occasions that because other people have certain advantages those advantages should be extended. That principle would be all right if it applied all round, but it does not. In November last a deputation asked the Minister of Health to remove an anomaly in the Old Age Pensions Act, and were told that the State could not afford the money, and that the Financial Resolution governing the matter could not be altered. But there is no difficulty in finding sums of money to give additional benefits to people who do not need them, and on such occasions as this we must protest that the Government are not dealing fairly with large numbers of people who are more deserving than the magistrates. I know that if the Government intend to get the Bill through they will do so, but we must make known our protest on this point.

Mr. KELLY: When the Under-Secretary introduced the Financial Resolution I told him we would take every oppor-
tunity of protesting against this Measure. We protest on the grounds put forward by the previous speakers, and also on the ground that there are many employés of the Government, in a much lower wage position than these people, to whom the Government refuse pensions. There are men who have been employed by the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Office of Works for from 20 to 50 years who are refused pensions, and such pensions as are given are of very small amount. Even the privilege of a week's holiday with pay is refused on the ground that the State cannot find the money, but it seems to be an easy matter to discover money for these other people.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I wish to utter by protest against this Bill. Apparently the Government are not coming back into power after the Election, and so they are trying to get through all these Bills before the Election. There are 60,000 women in this country who need pensions, but who can get nothing beyond what they are able to obtain from the boards of guardians. They have been set aside by the Government and refused pensions without any good reason at all, and we cannot help protesting against these things. We cannot get it out of our minds that at least the law for the rich is different from that for the poor, and I hope the Minister will take into consideration the people for whom we have been pleading. Not only would pensions help them, but they would help the ratepayers in the various areas of the country, especially such areas as those from which we come in the North, where everybody is suffering from the very high rates.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I hope hon. Members, because they do not feel that justice has been done to one class of the community, will not prevent justice being done to another. When I came into office four years ago, there were two sets of men working more or less under the Home Office, for whom I was responsible, who were disgruntled. The police were one and the other were the police magistrates. The House will remember that one of the first things that I did after I was appointed Home Secretary was to get in touch with the police, that large body of wage earners, and remedy their
grievance. I came to an arrangement with the police which was quite satisfactory to them, in regard to their pensions. I cleared that out of the way in the first place, because they were the larger number, and hon. Members will at least give me the credit for having done that. Then time after time I have been in touch with the Metropolitan Police magistrates, who have complained that it is impossible for them under the present circumstances ever to retire on their full pension. The proposal in this Bill is not to increase their pensions, but so to alter them that they can get their full maximum pension at a time of life when they will have a chance to enjoy it.

Mr. TINKER: The Bill does increase the pension after the eleventh year.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is right in his statement. For the first five years there is no difference at all, and for the next five years there is no difference at all, but after then, if you take 15 years of service, to-day a magistrate would get exclusive of bonus £625, and after the Bill is passed he will get £750; when he gets up to 20 years, to-day he would get £750, and after this Bill is passed he will get a maximum of £1,000, but if he were to last, having been appointed young, 30 or 40 years on the Bench, he would never get more than the maximum of £1,000 a year. I hope the House will not say that £1,000 a year is too great a pension for a police magistrate. They are a very remarkable body of men. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in my absence the other night, when the Financial Resolution came forward, told the House of the very hard work that they do, and it is a remarkable fact that during the last two years two of them have committed suicide from overwork. They are not merely men who send evildoers to prison; they are the friends, more than any other men in the world, of the poor.

Mr. TINKER: We have no complaint on that score.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I plead for these men who do this extra judicial work out of the kindness of their hearts and help the poor who come before them. You cannot appoint a man a police magistrate at an early age. There must be a certain knowledge of life, a certain
gravity of disposition which a man of 25 or 30 cannot have, but when a man has been at the Bar for 20 years, and gets to the age of 45 or 50, he acquires a certain ripe judgment that a man of 25 does not have. The responsibility is on my shoulder to appoint these men. It is a serious responsibility, and I can assure the House that I give the utmost consideration to choose out of all the men at the Bar the very best men to do this particular, very difficult and responsible work. I suggest to the House that this is a very tardy measure of justice to a very hard worked body of men, who devote far more time and mental energy to their work than they are bound to do, because they are determined to sit on the Bench as the friends of the people in the district. The question of pensions in other cases does not affect this case, which stands by itself. One hon. Member said that the Government could pass the Bill if they liked. That is true, but I ask hon. Members opposite to make a gesture to these men. There are 27 of them doing hard and overburdened work in London, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to make a gesture and to allow the Bill to be passed without opposition.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the parish of Piddinghoe, in the rural district of Newhaven, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 27th day of February, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Billericay and Romford, in the county of Essex, and for the amendment of the Brent-wood and District Electricity Special Order, 1923, which was presented on the 26th day of February, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Langport and parts of the rural districts of Bath, Keyn-sham, Shepton Mallet, and Wells, all in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 21st day of February, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the urban district of Tonbridge, and of the rural districts of Mailing and Tonbridge, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 26th day of February, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Glaslyn, in
the county of Carnarvon, and the rural district of Dendraeth, in the county of Merioneth, which was presented on the 19th day of February, 1929, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS' ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Resolved, "That it is expedient that the Solicitors' Acts Consolidation Bill be Committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills."—[Mr. Rye.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes After Eleven o'Clock.